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.

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 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.[1] 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)

User:Guy Macon, we get it. This is not the kind of thing that will lead to a block after discussion on ANI. They already said they will heed your words. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I would point out that unlike LABEL (which I am not at all convinced applies to the term in question), BLP is an actual policy and it distinguishes between sexuality and religious labels - to which a higher standard applies - and other kinds of categories such as political ones to which ordinary WP:V applies. However, I see that Halo Jerk1 is trying to change BLP too, as part of what looks from here like the largest and fastest exercise in forum shipping that I have ever seen. And unlike the use of reliably sourced political labels for BLP subjects. forum shipping actually is "against the rules". Newimpartial (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What you just said is poppycock. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

And notifying relevant pages is not WP:Forum shopping. WP:LABEL is a guideline. And WP:YESPOV is a policy. These rules are already in place. I ain't trying to change any rule. You just don't want to follow the rules. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Except that "Transphobic" as a term is repeatedly and routinely used in WP's voice. LABEL is a cautionary note only; as long as a label is relevant and "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", it should be used in WP's voice as well. Newimpartial (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't forget where WP:LABEL says, "in which case use in-text attribution." Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

If that were your concern, the appropriate course would have been a {cn} tag and not a forum shop. I for one made sure I had multiple RS at hand before restoring the terms in question. Newimpartial (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It was a concern, one that was repeatedly shut down. I now understand that you just don't like to follow our policies and guidelines when they conflict with your POV. That's why you are saying that appropriate notification is forum shopping. WP:FORUMSHOPPING is against "raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively." Notifications for a central discussion, per WP:TALKCENT, is not "raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively." That's why WP:FORUMSHOPPING says, "Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions." My notifications were extremely brief and neutral. Your attempts to throw shade are just as poor as your understanding of the guidelines and policies. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You state "Except that "Transphobic" as a term is repeatedly and routinely used in WP's voice." That is just proving that this problem is even more widespread; it is also a violation of WP:LABEL. WP:LABEL is not "a cautionary note"; it is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow." You also left off some of your quote; labels must be "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." -Crossroads- (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

They certainly are, and I made sure I had them at hand before restoring the terms in question. Also, the best practice is still to include those citations in the body and summarise in the lede, and not to edit war the lede because someone DOESNTLIKE a term that is consistently used by RS for a key aspect of the subject's Notability. Newimpartial (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

In-text attribution does not mean 'citing sources.' "In-text attribution is the attribution inside a sentence of material to its source, in addition to an inline citation after the sentence." per WP:INTEXT. That means we (Wikipedia) cannot call someone a TERF or transphobe in our voice. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You are still citing a style guide not a policy, so "cannot" is simply inaccurate. Also, discussions to this point have not concluded that "TERF" is a controversial term to which LABEL" appllies. However, it is necessary to resort to "referred to by Global news as a Trans-exclusionary radical feminist", then so be it. The point is not to whitewash the article. Newimpartial (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

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

The case in question at Megan Murphy happens to be the paradigmatic one where the notability of the BLP subject has become almost entirely taken up with her trans-exclusionary and radical feminist views. Nobody disagrees about this reality; the only question is in what terms to present it. Newimpartial (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I looked at her article, as it is the first listed in this section, and it's so obviously appropriate I can't even be bothered to look further. The TERF label is well supported by the sources, and she is quite literally advocating for the concerns of transwomen to be excluded from the feminism. Incidentally, continuing on a thought below, most notable white supremacists insist they are not even a little bit racist and that saying otherwise is hateful. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean, yes, the article would clearly put her in this camp, but at the same time, we have the subject disputing this label. We do not have enough history (at most, 7 years) to be able to readily establish if this is how she will be seen in more scholarly sources, in contrast to someone like David Duke who's activities have been well reviewed. Mind you, the lede has it right as to take the label use out of Wikivoice, but this becomes the issue with categories, because that category is implicitly stating she belongs in the TERF in wikivoice, which is absolutely wrong to be doing. That's the whole problem with any category that is based on a label, because we cannot distinguish "factually in this classification due to years of scholarly analysis" and "assigned to this classification because current RSes say so." We have to be rather careful when using these types of categories to make sure that the people is going to be known in the long term for being that label. I just don't think that's there for someone like Murphy in this case. --Masem (t) 05:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

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

• As an editor who has been personally attacked and accused of being a "TERF" because I enforce WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NOR in the article, I suggest that Administrators take a close look at the many attempts to inject biased edits into this BLP. The latest which began with this edit on 15:12, 1 August 2019. The blog and podcast by Meghan Murphy does not deal exclusively with transgender politics and attempts to describe it as such is activism by editors who have a negative, biased opinion about her. Information about her views on transgender activism and transgender legislation appears in the body of the article under sections "Views" and "Opposition to Bill C-16". Attempts to pigeonhole Murphy as a "TERF" or "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" neglects her history of critical opinions about third-wave feminism, liberal feminism, ageism, male feminists, the sex industry, exploitation of women in mass media, censoring, trigger-warnings, anti-bullying campaigns, and cult-like movements that suppress critical thinking. Murphy has specifically criticized "gender ideology" and this terminology has been supported with several sources, yet "gender ideology" has been repeatedly changed to "transgender rights" (for example: 1 and 2), which manipulates the information with a different "flavor". This is a BLP and as such "must be written conservatively ", "written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone ", without giving disproportionate space "to particular viewpoints ", and "must be fair to their subjects at all times ". Pyxis Solitary yak 04:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, WP is supposed to follow the terms reliable sources use to characterize BLP subjects, rather than the terms they use to characterize themselves (except for religion and sexuality). The vast majority of sources do not use terms such as "gender ideology" - or your favorite, "trans ideology" - but rather talk about "transgender rights" and "transphobia". Our articles in this domain must follow the RS; your obvious admiration for this particular BLP subject should not blind you to that requirement. Newimpartial (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

"The vast majority of sources do not use terms such as "gender ideology"". Are we to understand by this that you have personally researched such a volume of sources that you can unequivocally state "vast majority"?
"or your favorite, "trans ideology"". I see. I have a "favorite". Because you say so.
"your obvious admiration for this particular BLP subject". You really should refrain from responding to comments because you obviously have a one-track mind and it is not neutral. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a BLP of a Canadian, and I have read the vast majority of Canadian sources bearing on the subject and on questions of Trans inclusion and feminism. My POV is thoroughly situated within Canadian legal and social reaLty and the context of Canadian feminism, all of which is quite relevant to this article.

Also, if you aren't referring admiringly when you point out the subject's "critical opinions about ... cult-like movements that suppress critical thinking", I wonder why you used that turn of phrase. It sounds like admiration to me, or at least allegiance. Newimpartial (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

1) What does her being a Canadian have anything to do with this? Are we supposed to limit our reliable sources for a BLP to those published in the nation the person originates from? She filed a lawsuit against Twitter Inc. in the United States. She has given speeches about gender ideology and transgender legislation in Scotland. It is patently absurd to narrow reliable sources down to those published in a particular nation.
2) Try familiarizing yourself with the article before talking about it. Views: "Murphy has identified certain contemporary movements as "cult-like" in their efforts to shut down debates by calling people "phobic" (such as "whorephobic") or accusing them of "shaming" (as in "kink-shaming") if they fail to "toe the party line"." That material existed before I came along.
But more importantly, stop trying to turn this discussion into a personal tennis match. Because with every "personal comment" you show that you have abandoned neutrality in this matter, and are standing on hollow ground. Pyxis Solitary yak 05:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

1) My point about the subject being Canadian, is that the use of labels (even contentious ones) is often nationally-specific. When Canadian sources routinely refer to the subject's publications as "trans-exclusionary" (as centre-right Global news does in this case, for example), it makes sense for WP to follow those sources and the terms they use in the national context where the subject is politically active. (This has been an issue with other Canadian BLPs for terms such as "far right", where some editors have tried to whitewash articles using the significance of these political labels in other media environments.)

2) Please don't move the goalposts. You have accepted the subject's characterization of other feminist movements as "cult-like" rather than using another note neutral word choice; by doing so, you have led me to believe that you support the subject's POV in this analysis. If I have read you incorrectly, I apologise.

Overall, you are referring to as "personal" my comments here which are anything but. Maybe the log of your own BIASes should be more the object of your attention. Newimpartial (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

"you are referring to as "personal" my comments here which are anything but": "or your favorite, "trans ideology" ... your obvious admiration for this particular BLP subject", "It sounds like admiration to me, or at least allegiance." nuff said. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I like how, when your two numbered (substantive) points are addressed, you decide the most important thing is to show why you find my comments to be peraonal. Nice goalpost slide. Newimpartial (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I have no knowledge of these topics, but we do need to enforce WP:LABEL - however, if quality third-party sources identify these BLPs as such, I see no problem with adding it into the article, noting this determination's likely to be controversial. I'm happy to weigh in impartially if needed. SportingFlyer T·C 06:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The words "trans-exclusionary" are a prefix to radical feminist to describe in a precise and accurate way, that person's anti-trans views, based upon the premise that recognizing trans women as women damages the rights or freedoms of women. People who have become notable for their TERF views include men as well as women and self identified trans women. I cannot get very excited about category debates, however WP:LABEL is not being breached by the correct use of "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" to describe people who are precisely that, based on their own publications which promote both radical feminist views and trans-exclusionary views such as rejecting the recognition of trans women as women, making a big issue out of trans women using women's toilets, or claiming that "trans-activism" (presumably anyone who supports transgender equality) "erases lesbianism".[2] 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)

You're going to be sighing a lot. Because every time you and I are in the same discussion and you try to intimidate me with threats of Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions, I will make a point of letting other editors know in other discussions we are involved in about what you did and how you like to abuse the system. All your "thank you's" and 'polite' camouflage do not, and will not, hide your true colors. Because editors who are familiar with you may know your modus operandi, but those editors who are not familiar with you deserve to know how you use ArbCom d/s as a weapon to bully editors. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Pyxis Solitary, is "trans ideology" something like "gay agenda"? Because if it is, the warning about d/s sanctions is very appropriate. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

No. An "ideology" is The set of beliefs characteristic of a social group or individual. An "agenda" is The underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group. "Ideology" is a theory. For example: "Personal ideology is a component of personality that guides an individual's understanding of where value lies in life. Information on lesbians and personal ideology is a sparsely researched domain"; and "the controversies that fueled these debates in the 1970s were never settled, and the contradictions in lesbian ideology that reflect them were never resolved".
"Trans ideology" is short for "transgender ideology", and is another term for "gender identity ideology". "Transgender ideology" and "gender identity ideology" are interchangeable terms. Some examples that deal with "trans ideology/transgender ideology/gender identity ideology" (don't be surprised if a couple of editors attempt to shoot the messenger):

–  "$424 million is a lot of money. Is it enough to change laws, uproot language and force new speech on the public, to censor, to create an atmosphere of threat for those who do not comply with gender identity ideology?...Some of the organizations Jennifer owns and funds are especially noteworthy to examining the rapid induction of transgender ideology into medical, legal and educational institutions." (underscore mine)

–  "Transgender ideology is an outcome of the meteoric rise of Queer Theory which, contrary to the claims of trans activists, does not reject biological essentialism, but reifies it by simply reversing the order: It asserts that binary sex — being female or male — is socially “assigned,” not a biological fact; in contrast gender — an individual’s feeling of “femininity” or “masculinity” — is said to be pre-social, emerging from the inner being."

–  "Contemporary transgender ideology is not a complement to gay rights; in some ways it is in active opposition to them...transgenderist ideology — including postmodern conceptions of sex and gender — is indeed a threat to homosexuality, because it is a threat to biological sex as a concept."

–  "According to transgender ideology, a person who “identifies” as a sex opposite to their “assigned gender” should be unquestioningly treated as though they really are of that other sex."

–  "it is also important to understand that, far from loosening the shackles of gender, modern trans ideology often tightens them. Feminism offers the radical proposition that what you like, what you wear and who you are should not be dictated by your chromosomes, hormones or any other marker of biological sex. Trans ideology reverses that".

–  "prior to answering gender identity questions, the children in the Fast and Olson study had current transgender ideology presented to them with no reference to desistance".

–  "gender ideology suggests that people, in effect, create themselves; each person defines “who they are,” choosing a gender identity that feels authentic (regardless of anatomy or conformity to the natural law)."

–  "The concept of gender is not precisely defined, but we are to understand that gender identity is the individual’s feeling of being either a man, a woman, or neither of these. The problem with this is that male and female aren’t feelings...In transgender politics, the physical anatomy of the body can be reinterpreted based on the subjective identity that one has."

–  "several of the more popular answers on the list—critiques of feminism, critiques of homosexuality, critiques of race- and gender-based affirmative action, importance of racial differences in IQ and behavior for social programs, critiques of transgender “ideology”—concern the identity, status, and treatment of people."

–  "Murphy appeared at a sold-out event titled "Gender Identity Ideology and Women's Rights"."

As for my comment in the Meghan Murphy talk page which was a response to another comment, Masem said in Clarification request: GamerGate:

"The point that Johnuniq brings up (which just came up at BLP/N) is exactly the concern I expressed above. To be blunt, talk pages of mainspace pages cannot be "safe spaces" where certain concepts are forbidden. There are going to be ideas and concepts that some editors may feel offensive, but if the context is wholly within the scope of trying to discuss improvements for the article, that's 100% acceptable use of a talk page. The case that Johnuniq is troubling [sic ] because it seems to be aimed to stifle ideas that, while controversial, seem appropriate to discuss. These issues are waaaaay beyond the scope of what the FOF of GG resulted in, so again, I don't think this should be just amended onto GG." M

His comment referred to the statement by Johnuniq:

"I wondered what the background for this was. It appears to be Meghan Murphy where there are disputes over the degree to which the person or her blog should be described as trans-exclusionary radical feminist or TERF. The talk page shows the dispute including Pyxis Solitary saying "she's against trans ideology" which caused Fæ to respond with diff saying "trans ideology" was an attack on all trans people which, if continued, would warrant sanctions under WP:ARBGG. The issue of whether mentioning a "trans ideology" among off-wiki activists is a sanctionable attack should not be decided in a clarification request." J

So, yeah. As much as you may want to throw a former administrator a lifejacket for the virulent response to my comment in the Murphy talk page, Fæ used ArbCom d/s as a weapon and did bully and tried to intimidate me with the "you should be blocked or banned from Wikipedia" threat. Pyxis Solitary yak 06:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to respond to this wall of text, but since another editor has cited its authority as a "gotcha" argument at ANI, I feel impelled to answer it here. What Pyxis Solitary has done here is to assemble a collection of non-RS op-eds and screeds in conservative blogs to make the case that "Trans ideology" exists or is somehow an objective term. This is nonsense: trans people are as diverse as any other group of people (as evidenced by the diverse trans responses to the BC Human Rights Tribunal debacle), and the existence of diverse gender identities is a widely-observed empirical fact (noted among others by demographers) and not an "ideology". Baiting other editors based one one's personal belief that "Trans ideology" exists is no different from deploying "the gay agenda" or "Cultural Marxism" in the same way, and in fact it is mostly the same people who buy into all three caricatures. And what any of this has to do with feminism - the terrain within which this discussion was originally framed - I have no clear idea. Citing paleoconservatives about varieties of feminism makes roughly as much sense as quoting New Atheists about varieties of fundamentalist Christianity or Islam: not likely to be reliable. Newimpartial (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Baiting other editors based one one's personal belief that "Trans ideology" exists is no different from deploying "the gay agenda"....". I see that you like to wield the same baseball bat in more than one discussion.
  So I'll repeat here what I said to you in the other one: "First of all — in case anyone thinks it was — the term "trans ideology" was not included in the Meghan Murphy article. My comment in the talk page was based on Murphy's own words: "I see no empathy for women and girls on the part of trans activists, that is to say, those pushing gender identity ideology and legislation." (in Views.) I've seen "gender identity ideology" and "transgender ideology" used synonymously in many articles I've found. You think "trans ideology" is "a baiting word" ... I don't. I see it as an offshoot of identity politics. Just because someone in a discussion thinks "transgender ideology" is the same as saying "gay agenda" does not make it so." \*/
  The content you call a "wall of text" cites The Federalist, New York Magazine, The Economist, Morning Star, Daily Nous, CTV News, two scholars, and other writings. You may want to dismiss material that you label "conservative", but WP:BIASED is unambiguous: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective....Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs."
  As for the material (i.e. facts, information, or ideas) and its sources, to quote another editor in that ANI discussion: "to develop articles, we may need to in good faith discussion [sic ] external views that are hostile to trans individuals or the group as a whole....WP is a "respectful space"...and we will not tolerate editors insulting trans individuals, but this doesn't mean that we will not discuss material that may be insulting to trans individuals as long as it has a purpose."
  \*/ – comment in Murphy talk page. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

My reply.[3][4]. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

This is all well and good. And I am certainly not saying that editors should not discuss wackadoodle theories on Talk pages, since that among other things would be putting me out of a job. :p. But this must be done with a degree of respect and sensitivity that has not always been shown in these discussions. And if you think that an op-ed in The Economist or on CTV news is a RS for "gender identity ideology" as a "fact": well, you may have another think coming. This isn't a matter of bias, it is about expertise, and the reason I mentioned the conservatism of The Federalist blog is, as I suggested earlier, that it is therefore removed further from having something knowledgeable to say about feminism and lesbianism. Newimpartial (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

My reply.[5] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• If the person or organization specifically states that they exclude trans-women (in some way) as women, then the description or categorization is applicable. If multiple reliable-sources state as much, with adequate evidence and unbiased reporting, then the description or categorization would appear to be applicable if cited and well-sourced in the article itself as a WP:DEFINING characteristic. The description or categorization should not be lightly applied and any disagreement should err on not using the description or categorization absent WP:CONSENSUS. Absent obviousness, just report any obviously relevant information, reliably sourced and worded without WP:UNDUE weight, without using any labels or categorization. Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I've gathered a small list of sources on my user page which show that "TERF" is a highly contentious term. It only took about 15 minutes to compile and could surely be expanded. I don't think there are any neutral reliable sources (like a nonpartisan news article) calling someone a "TERF." As such, Wikipedia must not use it to describe people. Some of the editors who insist on doing so seem to have very strong personal feelings and political perspectives on the topic. Rhino (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

As commented elsewhere, most of these are not reliable sources, most are recycling anti-trans lobbying quotes from writers that are clearly trans-exclusionary as they vehemently oppose transgender equality. "feministcurrent" and "quillette" are effectively blog hosts for mostly extremist and self-promotional editorials and are not reliable sources for anything but evidence of personal opinions. The three links you give under 'news' include two BBC articles which appear to say nothing about "TERF" and the IHE article which ends with the opposite of the point you appear to want to demonstrate. This is not a helpful list.

By the way, accusing those that counter your viewpoint as being guilty of "strong person feelings and political perspectives", leaves out the personal abuse that we are targeted with by those supporting your views, such as Fæ likes to pretend that evil lesbians are pulling these experiences/disgusting accounts out of their asses diff, posted by the creator of this BLPN thread. I guess this is the new normal on Wikipedia for acceptable discussion/lobbying when it comes to transgender issues; there will be no sanctions for this sort of targeted harassment. --Fæ (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You like to assume the worse, huh? I responded, at my talk page[6], 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)

• I'd just like to point out the way the Halo Jerk1's original post singles transgender editors out for criticism, repeating that phrase 3 times. Per WP:NPA, we're supposed to Comment on content, not on the contributor. And we're not supposed to use someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views nor use derogatory phrases based on...gender identity. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The disputes are trans disputes and include trans editors. I said "transgender editors or other editors." Your attempt to frame me as bigoted toward transgender editors conveniently leaves out where I kept saying "or other editors" too. WP:NPA and "comment on the contributor" ain't got jack shit to do with my original post. Good try, though. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Rereading this discussion, a lot of the comments seem to basically say that if RS mention it, so should we. The problem is that the original issue is mainly about if the label TERF or transphobic should be stated in Wikivoice, or attributed, per WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:WIKIVOICE. So, I pinged back some participants to ask this question:

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

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.[7] 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."[8] 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."[9] 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."[10] 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."[11] 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."[12] 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?"[13]

• 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?[14][15][16][17] 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.[18]. 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)

• You're incorrect. That's why most others so far agree with me about WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE. It's why you went and contacted WP:LGBT.[19] You saw the tide rolling in my favor. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:49, 5 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.[20][21]. 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.[22] 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)

Correct, I replied to you on my talk page.[23]. In my assessment of your behavior across talk pages, it appears that you think everyone is deliberately targeting you, harassing you, or bullying you. Never mind how you deliberately target, harass you, or bully folks. On top of this, man, you've accuse me of trolling. Erm, okay. I think other editors agreeing with me on WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:WIKIVOICE is a reflection that I'm not trolling. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: The sentence ""Her views on transgender issues led to Murphy being labeled a trans-exclusionary radical feminist or TERF, a label which she rejects and considers to be hate speech." was deleted and re-deleted. Resulting in the article being restricted. 11:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Attribute statements of someone being TERF in light of linking to the current wording @ TERF which says the hallmark feature is "transphobic hatred". Saying that someone hates trans people because they don't believe a trans woman is a woman (or aren't attracted to trans women, or etc.) is quite a contentious opinion more than a factual observation. WP:LABEL is plain: ... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

As a practical matter, would the multiple and reliably sourced evidence that Murphy is mainly famous for being banned from Twitter, having her legal challenge against the ban fail, and being no-platformed by notable organizations for her actual-proven-in-court hate speech against trans women, be sufficient evidence of "transphobic hatred"? Checking as having your hatred officially recognized in court, seems like the most extreme type of evidence one could expect. --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)

"Still does not read like "wishful thinking"". Oh, yes it does. Because the court only ruled that the terms of service/policies were Twitter's prerogative to make as a platform publisher. That's what Section 230 is about. Immunity. The publishers are exempt from liability. Section 230 protects the publisher from being sued for content by users. For a reader-friendly explanation of the court's decision: read. The court did not rule on what Murphy tweeted, only that what Twitter did with her account under its ToS qualified for Section 230 protection. (In 2019, legislation was introduced in U.S. Congress to modify Section 230 with requirements regarding neutrality and transparency). Pyxis Solitary yak 16:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment In regards to When this is pointed out, transgender editors or other editors say the the opposing side has less weight and they prioritize American sources over British sources because they say that TERF ideology is stronger in Britain I think it would be appropriate to provide a diff on that, as any such removal rationale would clearly violate WP:RS and should be brought to ANI. Repeatedly doing so, should result to temporary ban. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Clearly, the comment "transgender editors ... say the the opposing side has less weight" is an humiliating and hostile attack against all transgender Wikipedians. It cannot be blithely given a "diff", because is just an attack against a minority group based on "dislike". Why anyone would think that making this claim about Wikipedia editors is anything other than harassment and abuse, and why others, like yourself, sit back and say things like, "oh could we have a diff for that please", rather than asking that person making the blatantly false claim about transgender people should be blocked, remains a puzzle to me. Maybe you could provide an explanation that makes sense?

My acid test would be whether a rationale that supports the statement attacking transgender editors, would be accepted and go unremarked, say, if the same thing were said about Jewish editors must all be biased if they edit articles about Judaism. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't like it when folks cast aspersions your way, but you have no qualms about casting aspersions others folks' way. Saying "transgender editors" is a "humiliating and hostile attack against all transgender Wikipedians"? You claim I dislike transgender people? Good gracious, the spin doctoring. An editor said it best when he said, "Fæ is very good at finding reasons to dismiss editors and make untoward insinuations."[24] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

We dont have protected classes on wiki and your personal griefs of beefs do not interest me for a single second. If you have nothing to say but just another rambling, just spare your fingers some typing. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a personal grief, this is a general question of policy. You appear to agree with Halo Jerk1, the original creator of this BLP/N thread, that transgender Wikipedians editing certain types of article are a problem for Wikipedia. Could you explain what you are proposing is done about this problem? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Im on wiki for 11 years and if you think that you are first one to use this you are sorely mistaken. I dont answer to you and I have no intention of playing game of someone whose contribution in these discussions border on instigating series of flame wars, with no good faith to be found. Now, tata. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Attribute as per reasons I've given before. Rhino (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Striking sockpuppet comment. — Bilorv (talk) 10:55, 5 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 via an e-mail from Halo Jerk1, presumably because of my previous participation in discussions on this topic at Talk:Julie Bindel and Talk:Mermaids (charity)). Colin M (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

So you are objecting to the use of "white supremacist" and "far right" in WP's voice, when they are the standard terms used in RS on a subject? Because these terms are routinely used in WP's voice even over the objections of BLP subjects and their sympathizers. Per WP:BLPCAT, it is appropriate to do so, but you seem to think that WP:LABEL takes priority (contra current policy). Newimpartial (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a fair question of when a label is a "standard term" used by RSes as to make it not necessary to attribute. I am thinking of something to propose at LABEL or BLP, but there is a far difference in a case where I can find articles from dozens of high-quality RSes (eg NYTimes, BBC) over a reasonable period of time (months or more) which that label is nearly always used, and the case where one has to cherry pick a few decent articles from RSes to justify the term. The latter case would apply here, meaning attribution would be necessary. (Note that in the first, I'm not saying that all those need to be referenced, but it should readily apparent from random news searching the term is valid). As I say, this is only formulating the idea, but I think we need some advice for this. This would also then apply to categorization - if its the first case, you can use labeled categorization, otherwise it is not appropriate to include. --Masem (t) 18:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think "far right" would meet the test I described above. Many people who are commonly labelled as being on the far right would accept that as an accurate characterization. "White supremacist" is a closer comparison. However, I do think its usage is less polarized along the lines of ingroups and outgroups than TERF. It's also arguably more clearly defined and well-understood (such that "X is a white supremacist" is at least closer to the "fact" side of the fact vs. opinion spectrum than "X is a TERF"). So I could imagine cases where it would be okay to use in Wikivoice, if there was very clear and wide support in RS. But I'd err on the side of attribution if there's any doubt. "Terrorist", "cult", and "fundamentalist" are other examples of terms listed at WP:LABEL which I think could be used in Wiki's voice in some cases, if there's strong sourcing - there are definitely subtle gradations in terms of the contentiousness or 'value-ladenness' of individual terms. Colin M (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Quick question - since we are talking about fourt articles in opening, do RS call them specifically TERFs (or do they mention TERFs in regards to Mermaids article)? Because if not, BLPCAT is not there to be found. And follow-up, if they do, in what weight are they in regards to other RS used which dont? I ask in regards to not apply WP:RSUW EllsworthSK (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Just went through Murphy sourcing - the lead provides two sources, neither of which mentions TERF in its abbrevation or full name. So...where is the RS? EllsworthSK (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Not sure I understand the issue and it seems okay to apply the label in most cases where someone makes a sufficient case. In these articles I think that the editors are making sufficient cases. I am not sure about how to make a general rule out of this. WP:LABEL is too short to clarify all situations. I suppose I would like for a group of people to commit the labor to organize a community discussion and consensus statement on this, but then also, these kinds of discussions are getting more frequent and we also need a meta-process for making community discussions more orderly, less work to call, and so that they produce more respected outcomes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Don't attribute, though this is something of a reductive question—my position is that we shouldn't always attribute. I agree with Fæ above, and the comparisons to labels such as "white supremacist", particularly Seraphimblade's If reliable sources widely use the term, but the subject disputes it, we state it as factual—subjects can dispute anything, but if reliable sources frequently ignore such objections and state it as fact, we do the same. Obviously the label "TERF" should be attributed if reliable sources are conflicted—this is true of literally any statement where reliable sources have substantial disagreement—but no, we don't need to attribute something that reliable secondary sources [note: not the subject themselves] agree upon. — Bilorv (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Attribute / Follow what RS says and WP:UNDUE, editors should not, under any circumstance, be adding labels because they feel that description applies. Either source calls it that, and there is sufficient sourcing to not violate WP:UNDUE or it does not. Murphy sourcing does not, it provides zero RS calling her TERF. The Mermaid article sources PinkNews which is not accepted as RS via consensus per WP:RSP. Bindel and Raymond wiki articles dont mention TERF so, not really relevant. I feel like the 101 of wiki, that has been in palce since Jimbo first posted first page, is being forgotten here rather quickly. We dont seek truth, that is not what we do in wiki. If someone has hard time understanding it, read WP:TRUTH. So it doesnt matter if you think its truth. It doesnt matter if you believe its truth. Truth does not have a place here. Only verifiability does. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Please note that there is currently an MfD discussion going to change the name of the category "TERF", with support divided between leaving the category as is, renaming it, and deleting it. There are many, many reliable sources stressing that exclusion of Trans women from women's spaces and non-acceptance of their gender identity is a highly notable aspect of the feminism of many individuals etc., so the argument you have offered may apply to the term "TERF" but not to the underlying category. There is also a proposal under discussion at "Feminist perspectives on transgender issues" to rework the TERF article to include the preferred self-descriptor, "gender critical", on a more parallel basis with TERF, which I also support. The debate over the label should not be allowed to distract from the substantive political debate, discussed in many RS including peer-reviewed academic articles, and in which the label debate is only one of many rhetorical moves. Newimpartial (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    • In Murphy case there is zero sources that call her TERF. Zero. Nada. Null. There is utterly nothing to discuss, its not even LABEL at that point. Its just violation of WP:RS and WP:V. You cant attribute something because that is how I read it. Simple as that. Sources call her radical feminist. She calls herself radical feminist. We have article Radical feminism. We are done at this point. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Attribute. Per WP:LABEL; and the opening sentence of WP:BLP: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." Pyxis Solitary yak 09:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

» Personal comment re the label "TERF". In my above 04:27, 3 August 2019 comment I state: "As an editor who has been...accused of being a "TERF"...." — you should know that I was called a TERF because in my Profile I unequivocally identify as a lesbian and a homosexual female («» p.s. ... I'm not Queer «»). That's all it takes to be called a TERF by some people and Wikipedia editors. And you should also know that Fæ agreed with the IP editor. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

1. Your statement is undeniable: "Agree with the IP comments". Comment-s. Plural.
2. Yes, you reverted the fake comment and fake signature attributed to me by the IP editor; however, your edit summary provides no reason for doing so. And since I don't give a rat's ass about the IP editor's talk page, whatever you posted in it was unbeknownst to me. Pyxis Solitary yak 12:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

My statement was perfectly clear as to what I was agreeing with because I qualified my statement. As you don't give a "rat's ass" about the IP's user pages, why do you think for one second that I am interested in what you say on yours?

My clarification was explicit diff "Agree with the IP comments, it's hard to imagine a blog writer that is more typically an active TERF promoting transphobic rhetoric. The arguments that you can never use the term "TERF" to describe anyone, has limits and arguing that Megham Murphy is not a TERF or blatantly transphobic is beyond logic and published fact."

My statement does not call you a TERF, my statement does not make any reference about what the IP claimed was on your talk page. If someone actually wanted to say they are a TERF on their user talk page, good for them, why would I care? Unlike others in this discussion I do not put all self identified lesbians, "gender critical" people, TERFs, or trans women in the same "ideology" bucket in order to dismiss them as a class of people for who they identify as.

Stop playing the victim card, it does not withstand scrutiny when you attack, attack, attack and besmirch others, and does not help this consensus process one iota.

Lastly, if you have been canvassed off-wiki in any way, or can shed any light on any meatpuppetry or sockpuppet manipulation, please make a statement. --Fæ (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

"As you don't give a "rat's ass" about the IP's user pages, why do you think for one second that I am interested in what you say on yours?" Oh. Are you the IP editor? And your not being interested in my talk page is a gift from heaven, thank you. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

See WP:SPI if you want to make serious allegations against me of sock puppetry and abuse. Otherwise, stop playing the victim. --Fæ (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not you. I'm not interested in creating a reputation for bitching about every perceived offense. I don't deal in narcissistic wounds. Nor am I interested in carrying pitchforks and lighting torches. Pyxis Solitary yak 16:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Bitching? Narcissistic? This is not me "perceiving offense", this is clearly you going out of your way to be offensive. Stop playing the victim when you are blatantly attacking others. --Fæ (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

"Others"? Nope. This may be a lengthy, exhausting thread, but anyone can see what I posted and regarding what. You are the only one that used ArbCom d/s as a weapon to threaten me in the Murphy talk page. You've made your bed, now lie on it. Pyxis Solitary yak 16:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, can you source the claim that you were called a TERF "because you unequivocally identify as a lesbian and a homosexual female?" Blackened0 (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Erm, see this[25]? Ain't you the anon who called her a TERF? I mean, come on now, you even just used her signature as a reply, just like the anon. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The IP 104.232.202.112 editor that made personal attacks and harassed me edited the Murphy article for the first time @ 13:39, 24 July 2019‎. The first comment made by the IP on the talk page was @ 15:06, 1 August 2019.
I don't know who you are, but I know this much: you created your account on 15:01, 26 July 2019 and your only user contribution so far is your question -- and as Halo Jerk1 pointed out: you not only used my signature in your comment, you used it in exactly the same way as the IP. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies. Based on my reading, the only people making the connection between you being called a TERF and you being a lesbian are Halo Jerk1 and yourself. You aren't able to justify that harsh claim, which you seem to have conjured and then extended to include Fæ. I don't think that these are desirable traits for Wikipedia editors, and I suggest you refrain from editing subjects where your personal biases may be in play. Blackened0 (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

You silly sockpuppet.
IP 104.232.202.112 was blocked for 36 hours for the personal attacks against me. Examples
Called me a "TERF": "[[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #7F00FF; color: #FCE883; font-weight: bold;">Pyxis Solitary</span>]] describes themselves as a TERF on their user page. They should be forbidden from editing this page due to their non-neutral, hateful perspective." IP1;
Falsified my signature to attribute comment to me: "As I said, I'm an ugly hateful TERF. [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #7F00FF; color: #FCE883; font-weight: bold;">Pyxis Solitary</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary| <span style="color:#FF007C;">yak</span>]] 12:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)" IP2.
I'll leave it to Admins to deal with the obvious sockpuppetry. Pyxis Solitary yak 01:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be avoiding the discussion at hand. It's not a personal attack to call a TERF a TERF. This is why the term should be added to the pages of people who are accurately described by it. Blackened0 (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It would be fair for you to apologize to Fæ. You suggested they were homophobic for referring to you as a TERF, when they did not do that, and that was not the basis for you being called a TERF, by anybody, by any evidence you've been able to share. I also argue that you using homophobia as a made-up trump card to win an argument is damaging to the LGBT community as a whole. I would suggest reading Feminist views on transgender topics#Collaboration against trans rights with conservative groups as it may be relevant or enlightening to you. Blackened0 (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

"It's not a personal attack to call a TERF a TERF." Except most folks in this thread have said the opposite.

Sorry, I gotta chuckle and roll my eyes at this. The anon says Pyxis Solitary calls herself a TERF on her user page. The anon says this even though it's based on nothin' that can be connected to the term, except for the fact that she's a lesbian, a connection that reliable sources say exists.[26] And when this reasonable conclusion is made, the anon says what can only be translated into "Y'all are just crazy. Y'all are just harsh and biased." Good laughs, man. The anon (now a registered user) has gotta be trollin.' Your harassment of Pyxis Solitary should get you blocked. It's like you only exist to harass her. Sad. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

"Except most folks in this thread have said the opposite.": most folks in this thread are wrong. This could be due to your canvasing and battleground editing. If you have an issue, start with Talk:TERF, and once you succeed in changing that article, you can revisit this one. Wikipedia currently says "While these feminists [TERFs] perceive the term to be a slur, mainstream feminists, other academics, and trans people have rejected this view" and "fringe TERF scholarship has built a cultural and intellectual foundation upon which the right wing could, by 'selectively highlighting and leveraging', construct anti-trans narratives that appeal to both conservatives and a certain sect of leftists." The "fringe TERF scholarship" in question is your and your friends, except without the scholarship. Blackened0 (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Pure trollin.' Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for conceding the issue. If you have anything substantive to add to the discussion, feel free to come back. Otherwise, please do not. Blackened0 (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

_____

• WP:LGBT has been notified.[27]. Maybe WP:Women and WP:Feminism should be notified too. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Notified: WikiProject Feminism. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Survey

• Yes. Attribute. Refer to my comment here, folks. Using in-text attribution is in accordance with WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:WIKIVOICE. To quote Masem, "A label should only really be considered factual in wikivoice if we have years of scholarly review of that person to make it an accepted academic fact that has withstood the test of time (eg Duke)."[28] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Attribute. per Halo Jerk1, per the nine other editors above who specifically favored attribution (not counting the sock), and per WP:LABEL's statement "Value-laden labels...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." TERF in present usage is indeed derogatory, just like transphobe, one of the words specifically mentioned by WP:LABEL, and so it should not be used in Wikipedia's voice. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Attribute. We shouldn't be using Wikipedia's voice unless there's broad consensus among high-quality, secondary, non-opinion/non-news sources of lasting impact that the label applies to the person. I would honestly say we shouldn't even be labeling in the voice of others unless there's widespread agreement on the term outside the recentist/immediateist press. I really don't see the value in this specific label anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  Also I am opposed to procedurally closing this. I wasn't canvassed. I, like many if not most of the people here, just happened to notice the RfC through my watchlist. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Attribute. I don't really know (being neither a feminist, LBGTQ, woman or even gender dysphoric) whether "TERF" is an epithet or a more dispassionate term. But some radical feminists object to begin called "TERFs". We could see the trendier WP:RS start using the term any day now. But the very fact the term "TERF" is at the center of controversy means we should be conservative and attribute in the text of a BLP when applied to anyone - at least until that controversy abates. loupgarous (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Attribute. It's a BLP and must abide by strict and meticulous standards. Pyxis Solitary yak 09:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Closing admin request: Procedural close This RFC and the BLP/N, both created by Halo Jerk1, has been subject to canvassing by Halo Jerk1 both by the misuse of targeted pings (see multiple above complaints by those that were pinged), and by what appears a covert off-wiki direct email campaign diff diff by the creator of this RFC. Given the context this is a direct breach of Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Gaming the system on a subject where the GamerGate Arbcom discretionary sanctions apply. The much quoted (by Halo Jerk1) example BLP of Meghan Murphy, was subject to significant sockpuppet manipulation of both the article and the discussion of changes to it. The above BLP/N was also manipulated by the same sock puppet account, with the views of the sockpuppet being posted as evidence by Halo Jerk1, as well as the sock puppet account making direct posts. Given that it is impossible to assess how much both the canvassing and the sockpuppetry are affecting the perceived evidence for those giving their good faith opinions, or to what extent the canvassing of selected viewpoints may distort bias, this RFC should be closed as an unreliable consensus process. This does not stop the potential to proceed with other processes, or another RFC, or indeed to reach a consensus through discussion. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  This RfC ain't the above discussion. There was one complaint about me pinging so many editors from a similar subject (#RfC: Category:Climate change deniers). I asked if it was okay, and I later got a reply that it wasn't. That discussion continued as usual. Also, folks, including you, have specifically rejected pinging as canvassing.[29]. I'm here now because I got an email to comment here explaining my email to Colin M, and I have a little time to respond. I didn't email Colin M to vote in this RfC. I emailed Colin M about the discussion higher up because he hadn't been on Wikipedia since August 1st, and I didn't know when he'd be back on. I didn't ask him to comment in favor of my viewpoint. I realize now that I should have left the message on his talk page for transparency. The email to Colin M, which wasn't about this RfC, shouldn't be used to silence this RfC. I didn't make all those folks higher up say that we should attribute. All the folks higher up and in this RfC saying we should attribute ain't "an unreliable consensus." If anyone really wants to shut down this RfC because of my email to Colin M, which wasn't about this RfC, how is this gonna stop another RfC on this topic, or the folks who participated in the discussion higher up from being pinged to it? We'd still have a lot of the same folks participating. Let the folks speak, just like they spoke higher up. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  Could you state clearly that Colin M has been the only person you have emailed about this Noticeboard discussion or related votes? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  Updated feedback from Colin M, still calling the email canvassing. No statement has been made on how many people were canvassed by email, see WP:STEALTH. --Fæ (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Drop the stick in your efforts to get this RfC shut down because it's not going your way. Colin M didn't call my email canvassing. What he did do was elucidate folks to the truth that I didn't email him about this RfC, and that it is "much preferrable" to notify people of a Wiki discussion like the one higher up publicly, on-wiki (via their user talk page, or a username ping). He said, "Using e-mail could be seen as a form of WP:STEALTH canvassing," not that I was canvassing. When he mentioned "the same principles apply," he was referring to how the email could look regardless. I didn't point him or anyone else to this RfC via email. I didn't tell him to vote a certain way. All my email said is that he might be interested in commenting in the thread higher up. It was that brief. I've said why I emailed him. He hadn't been on Wiki since August 1st. His contribs show he often takes days off from editing. I can take almost a month off and would welcome an email about a discussion I might be interested in. I've agreed that I should have left the message on his talk page. You want to know if I emailed anyone else. Did I say I did after Colin M's suggestion to list others if I emailed them? Then that's your answer. My very brief email to Colin M doesn't taint this RfC. Man, he hasn't even voted in this RfC! Your concern that I hadn't made a statement since my last response to you is very misplaced. My contribs, which I don't doubt you've looked at, show that I'm usually on Wiki at a certain time (night time, especially late night where I'm at, or very early in the morning). I ain't on Wiki twenty-four hours, seven days a week. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

No, the evidence shows you are misrepresenting the words of others and are now transparently dodging giving a direct answer to a direct question.

Colin M, in diff, stated "Still, I think the same principles apply, re canvassing." That is explicitly stating that your email was canvassing.

Please state unambiguously that Colin M has been the only person you have emailed about this Noticeboard discussion or related votes. If you obfuscate further, or continue just replying by throwing the chaff of counter accusations in the air, then everyone can and should draw the conclusion that you have canvassed other people, per the definition agreed in WP:STEALTH. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I also read "re Canvassing" the same way that Halo Jerk does, that private emails can look like canvassing. I think you've made your point, Fæ. Halo Jerk has owned up to their mistake and, given that other editors aren't accountable to you, your veiled threats and breaches in civility aren't going to make the procedural close you want more likely. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes per BLP. However this is not the same as saying that the term mustn't be used. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy procedural close: this is the same discussion as the one above, and contributors to that discussion have not been pinged, and there's been canvassing in this discussion and both canvassing and sockpuppetry in the discussion above. — Bilorv (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, Attribute Per my comments and critical concerns previously mentioned. Springee (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• It depends If we have 10 or so reliable sources all saying, "Linehan is a TERF" it becomes something of a WP:BLUESKY issue. In that case we could say that he's "broadly characterized as a TERF" [ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref] rather than listing attributions. For more marginal and disputed cases though, we should attribute such statements with respect to WP:BLP requirements and WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Admin request: if you are going to close this, please relocate to "Should Wikipedia state someone is a TERF or is transphobic in its voice, or should such a statement be given attribution?" the responses from editors that did not respond in that section to the similar-nature request for comments. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Overly broad We've had a number of discussions about "derogatory" labels(example) and editors have consistently rejected any sort of broad prohibition on terminology. If a term is consistently used by high quality reliable sources to describe something, then we should follow suit. If it isn't, then we can leave it out. If we want to talk about specific cases, we can have an RFC about specific cases. Nblund ^talk 14:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, attribute. RS clearly demonstrate dual usages, one descriptive, one politicized/loaded. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c [SMcCandlish via public WiFi] 16:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• It depends + overly broad. Generally, TREF is probably too newfangled and jargony. However, if 80%+ of RS covering the subject (including, say, BBC, NYT, WaPo, etc.) state in their lead sentence: "TERF Jane Doe spoke of her twitter experience...." - then sure - we should TERF away as we would with any other label when a preponderance of sources use it. I think this is a bit hypothetical (I don't see BBC TERFing people yet - but...). If we have a significant amount of reputable sources using TERF - we should attribute. And if its UNDUE (particularly for such a value laden label) - we exclude. To sum up - We should TERF someone on the same grounds we'd label someone a "radical Islamist", "white supremacist", "far-left", "far-right", etc. etc. Icewhiz (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Depends but generally attribute unless mainstream. If this were a mainstream term being used in "BBC, NYC, WaPo, etc." as Icewhiz says it might be a different story, but as long as it is being sourced to what could be seen as essentially trans activists advocates, letting them dictate factually labeling someone in Wikipedia's voice as hating trans people (according to how TERF is currently worded anyway) is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. "Is widely characterized as a TERF" without explicitly attributing to anyone in particular may also be reasonable in some cases. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  "essentially trans activists", I think means "trans activists". Of the key writers quoted in the TERF article, Guardian journalist Viv Smythe is probably the most important source. She describes herself as part of "feminist cis women", not radical, not trans, and clearly not trans activist. Lumping all writers who might use the words "trans-exclusive radical feminist" in their books or articles as "essentially trans activists" and "putting the fox in charge of the henhouse" is not a characterization I recognize, nor a helpful one if the issue is improving the diversity of sources supporting the TERF article. --Fæ (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  Smythe is not a Guardian journalist: although she "works for the digital community team at Guardian Australia", she has only written one piece for the Guardian [30], an op-ed about her coining the term. In it, she says[31]

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

  Cheers, gnu57 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction and choosing the quote. At least in Smythe's view, the word TERF has been used liberally by people with entirely opposing political agendas. Which is an expert opinion that clearly debunks the popular myth that this is all driven by "trans activists" (whatever they are). --Fæ (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said "trans advocates". It is far from a universal belief that "woman" does not mean "cis woman". So what we have is a plain matter of opinion. So we would be letting one side in a dispute, a matter of opinion, dictate that the other side be factually described as hating. This would be something like saying someone factually hates Rachel Dolezal only for believing she is not black, much more than something like making the more neutral observation that white supremacists hate other groups, which is not particularly contentious. If TERF were not worded to say that hatred is involved and it were clear that TERF were being used by both sides as a factual label, this would not be an issue. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a type of false equivalence. Most racists say they are not racist, or say they have "racial views", it's not a matter of opinion because of that, as racists are judged by their actions and statements about other races not what they say about themselves, we do not stop correctly and logically calling them racists. Separately it's not "a matter of opinion" with "sides" if some people believe that only cis women are women, that's the very definition of denying the existence or validity of trans women, and it meets all definitions of what a transphobic statement is. It seems very reasonable indeed in Wikipedia's voice to use the words "trans-exclusionary" rather than the full on "transphobe" to describe people who lobby for, or promote, such basic and offensive anti-trans statements. --Fæ (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Like I have said, if TERF were sourced differently and at least said "transphobic" instead of "transphobic hatred" I would have much less of an issue with linking to it in a BLP as a fact about the person. Transphobic could be taken as in oleophobic - the question is if that is how it is taken I guess, and how "TERF" is taken vs. "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". It's at least in part an editorial decision whether this term is 1) encyclopedic and 2) more a slur than fact. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

And the trans women who say they ain't women or ain't female, and that the view on how a woman is defined is as ideological as any other ideological view?[32] This source is in the TERF page, but, unsurprisingly, this facet is missing from the page. To quote parts of the source,

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

Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe there would be WEIGHT issues involved in drawing out the implications of any such FRINGE view, particularly in the TERF article. On the other hand, an improved discussion of the alternative label "gender critical" would be helpful in my view, parallel for example to thus discussion of white separatism as a form of white supremacy. Newimpartial (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I knew ya were gonna invoke "FRINGE." However, trans women who are feminists and say they aren't women or aren't female should be briefly included in the TERF and Feminist views on transgender topics pages. WP:FRINGE don't mean fringe views can't be included. And if we call these trans women fringe on Wikipedia, we should source that. We can they aren't mainstream, like the Slate source basically tells us. Right now, I think readers come away from these pages thinking only non-trans women think this way. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Attribute per what I already wrote above. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Attribute I don't really know whether "TERF" is an epithet or a more dispassionate term. The very fact the term "TERF" is at the center of controversy and that some people object to begin called "TERFs" means we should be conservative and attribute in the text of a BLP. We shouldn't use it at all in lede paragraphs of BLPs. Also, I'd like to mention that I was innocently reading this page, and voted without being canvassed, recruited in any manner or a sockpuppet. I'll gladly see anyone who says differently in WP:ANI where they can either present evidence of this accusation or retract the charge. loupgarous (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Not necessarily. If the person or organization specifically states that they exclude trans-women (in some way) as women, then the description or categorization is applicable. If multiple reliable-sources state as much, with adequate evidence and unbiased reporting, then the description or categorization would appear to be applicable if cited and well-sourced in the article itself as a WP:DEFINING characteristic. The description or categorization should not be lightly applied and any disagreement should err on not using the description or categorization absent WP:CONSENSUS. Absent obviousness, just report any obviously relevant information, reliably sourced and worded without WP:UNDUE weight, without using any labels or categorization. Softlavender (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Attribute as a general rule, but I do agree with Softlavender immediately above - there may be instances where we don't need to, like where the person self-identifies (which should probably be attributed anyways.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Attribute: Absent the broad consensus noted by Mendaliv, and self-identification (though that should also be attributed), attribution remains the best practice for value-laden terms and phrases. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Depends on sources I think Wikipedia should follow the reliable sources with its labels of living persons. Attribution, whether to a specific source or to a type of source generally, should be used unless a label is widespread in reliable sources. The term "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" seems to be used less in the sources and more simply as a synonym for "transphobic". I agree with Softlavender's comment that a term needs to be a defining characteristic used in numerous reliable sources or relatively accepted by the individual being called it. Almost all terms that are "-exclusionary" or "-phobic" or "anti-" are labels that need to be carefully used based on the language used in reliable sources rather than interpretations of the language used in the sources. Existing Wikipedia policies seem to already cover this discussion, unless there is serious doubt as to whether "trans-exclusionary" is a type of transphobia. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Attribute - As per, well, 90% of the people in this discussion. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Attribute all possible dysphemisms Not just this one, but all where the person does not self-attribute a label. I note the historical existence of Womyn-born womyn as a term for a subset hereof, where that label is self-applied. The existence of auch groups is not really in doubt. Collect (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Does anyone actually identify as a TERF? If not we shouldn't label someone as a TERF, we should instead say that x or y has described them as a TERF. ϢereSpielChequers 22:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  I think I agree with you, based on the nature of the term, effectively a political slur. However we seem happy to use other terms that are generally considered political slurs, such as "far right" and "far left" based on third party opinion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC).
  

• Decide based on sources. If only one high-quality reliable source calls them a TERF, we should probably inline-cite that one; but if multiple high-quality, reliable non-opinion sources use the term for them in the article voice as if it's a neutral descriptor, inline-citing them all gets clunky (while inline-citing only some of them downplays what is clearly a major descriptor for their views), and also serves to downplay or express doubt for something is clearly relatively uncontroversial. --Aquillion (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• Attribute unless the subject self-identifies as such. I happened to see this and was not canvassed but, yes, attribution seems best in line with our policies and to offer the most informative presentation to our readers. Haukur (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• Don't use the term unless the subject self-identifies that way. It's a contrived bit of jargon intended to denigrate, suggest the target of the characterization holds illegitimate ideas. Instead, if relevant to the article, the subject's views should be carefully described and properly attributed, as should appropriate example(s) of criticism of those views. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• Don't use the term for now The primary purpose of this term in common usage is to attack and belittle somebody. Wikipedia shouldn't be giving a platform to this type of language. Does any other respectable encyclopedia decribe its subjects as TERFs? Does mainstream academia use this language to categorise this type of activist? If it becomes a legitimate component of scholarly lexicon I would withdraw my opposition on those grounds. If it become impossible to give sufficient coverage to a subject without utilising the term then it should certainly by attributed. Betty Logan (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Begging the question of whether we should use "TERF" at all. Using it without attribution is certainly not a good idea, but it should not be used to categorize at all, and should only ever be used in quote, reported speech or something very close thereto.

  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC).
  

• Comment firstly, just to point out that at present, the TERF description in the Meghan Murphy article is wholly unreffed and therefore fails WP:V. Acres of text are being expended above, while something a rookie editor would be expected to know is being ignored. Secondly the text is in the opening sentence of the lead, but not expanded in the body (where it would give some oppurtunity for the reader perhaps to learn what this neologism means, who has so accused Murphy, when they did so and what she has written to deserve it). And Yes. Attribute. or fix the linked article, such that it is an informative, neutral description of what these women believe and why - not the poorly sourced, thinly disguised, attack page it currently is. Pincrete (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• No, stick with existing guidelines; saying that we should always attribute would mean we have a higher standard for applying the term "TERF" than we do for applying the term "neo-Nazi", which IMO makes no sense. As others have pointed out, we call Richard Spencer a neo-Nazi quite clearly, without in-text attribution, and despite his own denial of the term. However, we do this only because the sourcing for it is overwhelming. I think this standard for applying controversial terms is good and makes sense. Applying a stricter standard for only certain terms would not only get into WP:BLUESKY issues, it would be a wiki-wide violation of WP:NPOV. LokiTheLiar (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Masem's take on it guides us on when to attribute. Folks didn't say always attribute. Who mentioned Richard B. Spencer anyhoo? Also, "neo-Nazi" is a much more established term than "TERF" is and doesn't have the same "it's a slur" baggage. It may be misused as a slur, but it doesn't have the same "it's a slur" stuff attached to it. If it did, this would be somewhere on the Wikipedia page. Someone might add something like that to the page, but it's not there at the moment. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, attribution is needed. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Depends on sources I've been thinking on this for a long time hence the late reply and have came to this conclusion. As others have said, we can refer to people as white supremacist, far-right, anti-semite etc even when these people reject such labels if a preponderance of sources use these terms to refer to these people without attribution. There's no reason why TERF should be different. It's true we do not generally (AFAIK) use the term 'homophobe' or 'misogynist' to describe people, however we do refer to stuff like homophobic views Alexander Zaldostanov or sexist comments Ron Franklin without attribution. I suspect that referring to someone as a TERF would generally be better than referring to their transphobic views etc but again sources will help determine that Note that this is not a comment on any specific case, as I have not looked to for any examples. If the term is really as disputed as some suggest, then there should be no examples so it's not an issue. As for categories, if the article does use the term without attribution based on support from sources then it seems reasonable to categorise the person as such. Whether such categories should exist will depend on whether there are enough people to add to it for it to be a useful category. BTW, I do agree this discussion is a royal mess and anyone closing needs to take into account all comments in the various sub threads. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I was set on startin' an RfC about the TERF label at Talk:Meghan Murphy, but this is a wider issue, and even after most folks so far have said we should attribute, this revert[33] was made at the Meghan Murphy article with a declaration that "An RFC would be excessive." All of the discussion that is going to be had about this at that article's talk page has been had. The only thing left there now is stonewalling. I brought the issue here for opinions from the more general community. While we now know that Rhinocera was a sock, their language[34] was more appropriate. Masem explained why.[35] We've debated a lot higher up. It's now time to try a better form of achieving consensus on this. Hence the RfC. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Compliant notifications are not canvassing. Please do not muddy the waters by pretending that there is any evidence of equivalent canvassing that "balances" the actions by Halo Jerk1, this has all been one-sided for those that are lobbying exclusively to the benefit of political radicals against transgender equality, like Meghan Murphy. Thanks so much. If you have received any canvassing emails, or have been in coordination with anyone off-wiki about these articles or these consensus processes, please make a full statement. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Please note that LGBT has an L as well as a T. That ain't canvassing, Crossroads1, ans my notificarion was quite neutral. Newimpartial (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree, that is not canvassing, whether or not Crossroads favors what they consider to be the influence on this RfC. WikiProject Feminism could be notified too for that matter. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• No idea why I was pinged in this. I couldn't care less about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It's my understanding that TERF is supposed to be the neutral term, which would mean that we wouldn't need to provide in-text attribution per WP:LABEL. Normally, it would be easy to dismiss efforts to treat TERF as a value-laden label, but it's not so easy to do so when the TERF article is worded in a way so as to make TERF itself a value-laden term. If TERF (in violation of WP:LABEL) continues to use transphobic without in-text attribution when defining the term, then it would make sense to also require labeling someone as a TERF to also require in-text attribution. I don't like this as a solution, because it entrenches what I believe to be unencyclopedic wording in the TERF article and for which I am still attempting to address through dispute resolution. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

"It's my understanding that TERF is supposed to be the neutral term". I don't know who has been saying that "TERF" is a neutral term, and I don't know what selected sources are used to support that allegation, but it is certainly not a "neutral term" for many. There are those who consider it a slur and a derogatory language, as also found here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here. (there's more, but I think these are enough). Pyxis Solitary yak 09:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have receipts, but the supposed "neutral" alternative is "gender critical feminist" and, if my own understanding and the TERF article are any guides, that term doesn't seem to pass WP:COMMONNAME muster. This relates to something Fæ said earlier, that Most racists say they are not racist, or say they have "racial views" and that we do not stop correctly and logically calling them racists. Maybe they can elaborate a little more on that, but it seems like at Wikipedia that we actually do stop calling them racists here at Wikipedia, per WP:LABEL. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

If someone has a comparative case with a consensus about how we write about notable racists, that would be a useful comparison to link to here. Happy to be corrected, I do not follow those exact topics. --Fæ (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you asking for the discussion behind that component of WP:LABEL? Or are you asking about specific high-profile racists? For the latter, just think of a racist and see if their Wikipedia page uses the term "racist" without attribution. David Duke, Strom Thurmond, and Donald Trump all avoid using the term "racist" without attribution. I'm sure you can think of others to check. I wouldn't know where to check for the former. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It's asking for an exemplar like "racist", if a consensus process can be referenced and would be useful to consider, because we might find a better way of doing this.

I am aware of the Trump article changing this week, so the weasley "Racial views" as a subtitle became the factual and more meaningful "Appeals to racism and xenophobia". It's interesting, but there was not an especially smart process behind that discussion. --Fæ (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh I see. You're looking more for discussions behind these choices that can help us here. I'm not sure where to find those without doing a lot of digging. Maybe someone else can point us in the right direction. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ƶ§œš¹ that our own article TERF complicates the issue by defining "TERF" in terms whose neutrality is disputed. There's common sense evidence the term is capable of being interpreted pejoratively, and should be attributed in BLPs, generally. Our article Meghan Murphy is complicated by the subject's own public statements regarding trans women. Even so, WP:BLP says we ought to proceed conservatively and not lend wikivoice to either side in the debate over whether Meghan Murphy is indeed "trans-phobic", as our article TERF defines the term. Plenty of time after the dust clears and a broad spectrum of reliable secondary sources use the term to do that.

Also plenty of room to present both sides (of whether Meghan Murphy's a transphobe or merely excluding them from the definition of "feminist" as she seems to do with men) below the lede paragraph.

Not saying anything contentious in wikivoice about the subject of a BLP doesn't hurt anyone. I'm surprised there's even discussion about that here. --loupgarous (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

There's also the trans women who say they ain't women or ain't female, and that the view on how a woman is defined is as ideological as any other ideological view.[36] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Fringers gonna FRINGE. Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The source does let us know that these trans women aren't mainstream, but, going by what I said higher up, WP:FRINGE don't mean fringe views can't be included. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment on Raymond I agree with others who think that the sourcing for Murphy is weak, but I think there are other cases where "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" is a consistent description in the sources. Here are some examples of descriptions of Janice Raymond's work that appear in high quality sources:

• Sally Hines (Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Feminism): what has recently become to be known as a 'TERF' (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) perspective is evident in the much cited 1979 book by Janice Raymond.."
• Rachel McKinnon(Philosophy and Phenomenological Research) TERFs such as Janice Raymond equate trans women’s very existence with rape..."
• Cameron Awkard-Rich (Signs): Thus, the amenability of Raymond’s transexclusionary radical feminist (TERF) stance to government policy contributed to a decades-long legal exclusion of trans health care from public insurance
• Shannon Weber (Journal of Lesbian Studies) Raymond’s writings, while remaining the most well-known feminist set of arguments against the inclusion of trans women in feminist movements, have been joined by the work of a chorus of other anti-transgender feminists known as TERFs, or “trans-exclusionary radical feminists
• Columbia Journalism Review: But Goldberg ignores the legacy of harm Raymond and other trans-exclusionary feminists have done to trans women, which no doubt informs angry comments on Tumblr

As I've mentioned before, I don't think the term "TERF" is helpful because it's jargon. But Raymond is a radical feminist who is distinguished primarily by her belief that trans women should be excluded from the feminist movement/from womanhood generally. The precise wording of that description is up for debate, but calling her a "radical feminist" (full stop) is no more supported by the sources than calling her a trans-exclusionary radical feminist. Nblund ^talk 17:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thats good sourcing, but I would point out couple things. McKinnon as source can be easily source of dispute given the publicized fight regarding these issues with eg Martina Navratilova among others. CJR carefully within wording avoids the labels as such, rather explores the term and observes it from both sides. Though I can see why it could be used as a source. Hines, Rich and Weber sources seems very solid and as such as long as WP:UNDUE doesnt appear, or MOS:LEADNO, the term within article seems quite well sourced without any dispute. At that point I guess we roll back on BLP - is TERF applicable source if within RS? In my opinion, unless consensus differs, yes. Or is it something that should be applied only when its self-descriptory? I generally tend to no on these terms. If the later should be applied, concurrent discussion about merger of Radical feminism with TERF should be opened and arguments should be made there as these feminists who have that label generally see themselves as subsection of former. That would also possible solve this issue by LEAD desciption with RadFem, but redirect to TERF subsection. Just an idea, tho. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Rachel McKinnon, a trans woman who is embroiled in what has become known as the TERF wars, and in the debate over trans women competing in women's sports,[37] is hardly impartial. WP:BIASED tells us that sources can be biased and still be used, but, man, what a biased source she is. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't do too much digging on the quality of the journal, but it's a peer reviewed publication from a noted scholar, and I definitely don't think we're in a position to disqualify sources just because they're written by trans people. Eliminating scholars who are critical of trans exclusionary feminism seems like it would eliminate pretty much every scholar who has commented by virtue of the fact that the overwhelming majority of feminist academics see Raymond's work as extreme and dated (at best). Nblund ^talk 04:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I ain't saying that the views of trans people should be discounted. I'm not like some who try to disqualify sources because of their personal POV. Like EllsworthSK, I'm just saying that she's been embroiled in what has become known as the TERF wars, and in the debate over trans women competing in women's sports, and is far from impartial. There's no need to point me to WP:BIASED since I pointed it out myself. As for "the overwhelming majority of feminist academics see Raymond's work as extreme and dated (at best)," I'd rather see a source explicitly say that. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not following this thread particularly closely, so I have no idea who the "some people" you're referencing are, but I suspect it doesn't really matter for this discussion. Kathleen Stock (one of McKinnon's critics) says: "that in gender studies, queer theory and mainstream feminist philosophy, “the position that trans women are literally women is now an article of faith, disagreement with which is seen as a sign of moral degeneracy, rather than a matter over which reasonable people with different theories can disagree.". I think she's basically right, and I don't see anything to indicate that Raymond's views are taken particularly seriously today. Nblund ^talk 14:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

You agree with her on what? Where she says "rather than a matter over which reasonable people with different theories can disagree"? Considering the political nature of these topics, and folks I see disagreeing with one another (including trans folks disagreeing with other trans folks), I'm not taking anyone's word for it on Raymond or anyone else. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with her that the claims like "trans women are actually just men" (which is essentially Raymond's view) is considered dated and offensive in the fields that Raymond's work is addressed toward (academic feminism, gender studies, etc.) Nblund ^talk 15:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• FYI: an RfC to replace the Meghan Murphy biography as a "non controversial stub" has been requested: RfC to rebuild the Meghan Murphy biography. Pyxis Solitary yak 01:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Ugh! This "discussion" has become such a trainwreck that I can't even see the best place to add my comment among the mangled wreckage so I'll just put it here at the bottom and add to the verbiage.
  There is nothing special about these terms. The usual rules for BLPs, and articles in general, should apply. All article content needs to be validly referenced. We should take care not to refer to anybody as a transphobe or a TERF without valid referencing but we should not be afraid to refer to them as such when the references support it! Sure, they won't like it, but then the white supremacists don't like being referred to as "white supremacists" and will offer a range of euphemistic alternative terms they would prefer. So long as the references support what we say, this is simply not a consideration for us.
  There are several analogous situations to guide us: We should treat "transphobe"/"transphobic" the same way we treat "homophobe"/"homophobic" and "Islamophobe"/"Islamophobic". "TERF" is a little more problematic. One insight I would like to offer (and I apologise if this is already buried somewhere in the TL;DR above) is that "TERF" is a term with its meaning in limbo. Sometimes it literally means what the acronym implies (i.e. a radical feminist who is transphobic) and other times it is simply used as a synonym for "transphobe" without really meaning to suggest that the subject is any sort of feminist. This has come about partially due to natural evolution of language but mostly because a lot of transphobes use insincere feminist sounding rhetoric to confuse the issue and mask the real basis for their transphobia. For this reason I suggest that we should prefer the terms "transphobe"/"transphobic" where that is all we mean to say and only use "trans exclusionary radical feminist" (set out in full) where we have references to show that the subject's transphobia coincides with a general radical feminist standpoint, not purely on trans issues, i.e that we need to show references for both "trans exclusionary" and "radical feminist" separately.
  We should also take care not to conflate "TERF" with "radical feminist" in general. That would be inaccurate and unfair on the radical feminists who are not TERFs. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Begging the question of whether we should use "TERF" at all. Using it without attribution is certainly not a good idea, but it should not be used to categorize at all, and should only ever be used in quote, reported speech or something very close thereto.

  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC).
  

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brock Blomberg

• Brock Blomberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I'm Tom and I work for Ursinus College (as declared on my profile page and at Talk:Brock Blomberg). I've created a Wikipedia account to address what I believe to be inaccurate and misleading information on the page about the college's president, Brock Blomberg. On the Talk page, a box at the top mentions that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article," and that is basically what I'm trying to get help with. While the details I'm asking about have citations, I don’t believe they support what is written and, ultimately, the details are not about Blomberg himself, but rather about other people and/or the college.

I submitted an edit request to remove 2 paragraphs of text which were a clear misinterpretation of the references. I have also identified problematic text and tried to explain how the content is inappropriate based on the citations. However, User:Spintendo said my edit request was not formatted properly. I re-submitted my request after trying to format as instructed, but my request was collapsed and declined because User:Spintendo said I should only offer replacement text (and not ask to have it removed.) I am new here and acknowledge that I have plenty to learn about this process, but I firmly believe the issue is that this material isn't appropriate in a biography about Blomberg.

If you uncollapse the "Extended content" part of the most recent edit request, you'll see I identified problematic text. I also tried to highlight what sources actually say about these "controversies" (which reflect the actions of other people and the college more so than Blomberg himself). While I sincerely thank User:Spintendo for reviewing a few of my previous requests, I'm asking other editors to review as well, since I may have been unable to clearly communicate the points I’m trying to make. I understand editors reviewing my requests will be skeptical, and that is completely understandable, but I think if editors look at this from an objective viewpoint, they will agree this contentious material misrepresents sources and is unfair to include on this biographical page.

Thank you for considering this, and please let me know if there is a better venue for this discussion! TY Ursinus (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, again. I'm not seeing any replies here or on the Talk page. Higher up on this page, I see posts are archived in 7 days, and I also see, "For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead." Should I go ahead and submit a request for comment now, or am I supposed to wait a few more days to see if anyone replies here? Thanks for any procedural advice or feedback on the article's text. TY Ursinus (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I think you make some very valid points. I looked at some of the sources and it does seem that, at the very least, the author is misinterpreting them to some degree. For example, one sources says the subject kicked a person out of a high-level position, which in our article we seem to interpret as firing the guy, but that may not necessarily be the case. This sometimes happens here, because we are supposed to read a source and then restate the meaning in our own words, to avoid copyright vios, but that sometimes leads us to misinterpretations of the sources or even synthesis. (Not intentional synth, I believe. It's a natural, unconscious reaction for people to cover all the voids and gaps in our knowledge, and fill in the unknowns with our own ideals and imagination, making our understanding seem complete when it really is not. That's something that's actually hard-wired into our brains. ie: You're driving down the road and see a beautiful woman, but the closer you get the less beautiful she becomes. From far away there were many gaps in your knowledge, which your imagination automatically fills in with your own ideals of what constitutes beauty.)

Unfortunately, I think you've bitten off more than anyone wants to chew. It's hard enough to keep a discussion around here focused on one thing, let alone several in one request. Keep in mind, we're talking about a community that can discuss for months/years about whether the "the" in The Beatles should be capitalized or not. (Did I get it right?) I don't have time to look at it all myself, as I'm literally on a much needed vacation right now. My advice: scale your requests back to something tackleable. The purpose of this noticeboard is to report BLP policy violations, but it can work just to get some more eyes on a discussion. But what I'm seeing is more of a content discussion, which is best done at the article's talk page. If that doesn't work, you can try WP:RfC. If that still doesn't work, then you may have to either be more convincing or accept that consensus may be against you. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Zaereth: Thanks for your thorough reply and recommendation. I've resubmitted a much narrower request specifically seeking removal of misrepresented text and detail about Michael Marcon. I'm hoping you or another editor will review and update the article on my behalf. Thank you. TY Ursinus (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't normally work on biographies, and am here a little bit by accident, so forgive me if I'm being clueless. Have posted at the article's talk page. Pelagic (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I just saw the pings. (I don't always look, but do appreciate the thought.). I don't think we're trying to make people jump through a bunch of unnecessary COI loops. These rules exist for good reason. No to mention we all have other things going on in our lives. We're all volunteers here, so, sorry to say, a volunteer's response is typically what you're going to get. I'm literally checking in between flights, so I really don't have the time necessary to put into this. When I get more time, I may come back to it... or I may forget. Things around here can be fast paced or slower than molasses. We're just gradually building an encyclopedia bit by bit.

Another thing to consider is that I have respect for the opposing editor, so I am obligated to take their objections seriously, even if I don't agree with them. Who knows?? I may be wrong. (Believe it or not, it has happened ... more frequently than I care to admit. It's a wonder I'm still alive! ) That usually happens from rushing in too fast and not doing the proper research. I don't see any real urgency here, at least, not from a BLP standpoint. Otherwise, the best place for this discussion is at the article's talk page. Zaereth (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

OK to say BLP was accused of Islamophobia?

As part of the Andy Ngo article the article contains a sentence, "Ngo was accused of Islamophobia and subsequently issued a correction" My concern with this sentence was initially 3 fold, RS, DUE and LABEL. I'm less concerns about RS but it still applies to a number of the citations.

LABEL While we aren't saying in Wikivoice that the article subject is an Islamaphobe, we are saying others have applied that label to him. This is clearly a value laded label and per LABEL should have in text attribution but the article only says "was accused of..." with no statement as to who made the claim.

RS Next, are the sources reliable for the claim in question. That's mixed. Some sources say a WSJ article written by Ngo was accused of being Islamaphobic. The Wikipedia article says Ngo was accused of being so their is a bit of SYNTH going on here. I think it's clear that both Ngo and his WSJ article were accused of being Islamaphobic but was that by random social media posts or reliable voices? Newser is a news aggregation site with no evidence of editorial oversight. Commune Magazine is self described as, "a popular magazine for a new era of revolution." [[38]]. Thus I would rule both out as not RS. I couldn't find a Wikipedia article about the source and no evidence that RSs pay any attention to it. The Stranger appears to be the blog (SLOG) portion of The Stranger. I've found no evidence that The Stranger is considered reliable in general. The SLOG said an article by Ngo was decried as Islamaphobic but didn't say he was personally. This source is perhaps the only one that provides a link to back the claim. That link was a Medium posting (thus effectively a blog post). It supports that the article was criticized but not that Ngo was personally called Islamaphobic and actually offered evidence that the claim was not true. The same is true of The Origonian other than it doesn't link to a source for the accusations against the article. I don't see much evidence that RSF/Reporters Without Boarders is widely viewed as reliable but they are simply stating that counter-protesters/Antifa said Ngo was Islamaphobic but provides no specific. Finally we have an interview with Ngo where he says he was accused of being Islamaphobic in "messages and comments" via Twitter etc after the article but again we have no evidence that any RS voice say Ngo himself or even the WSJ article was Islamaphobic. Thus we are left with a question of WHO is saying this. Are these reliable opinions or just the mad masses?

UNDUE This brings me to my last concern, UNDUE. While we are skirting actually calling the BLP subject Islamaphobic, we are allowing the accusation to stand in the article without challenge. Even more disturbing is that neither the article nor the sources actually trace back to who is really making the claim. Given the contentious label and the lack of any authoritative source it seems like this is failing a proper in text attribution and thus is UNDUE. The article reasonably talks about negative backlash associated with the article but given this is a BLP why include a contentious label that is attributed to, in effect, "they say"? Springee (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Springee: are you questioning whether or not Ngo was accused of Islamophobia here? Do you think the RSF and Oregon Live sources just fabricated accusations of Islamophobia or something? Did the Washington Times and Washington Examiner participate in the fabrication? I don't see it. This might need further substantiation and specificity, but WP:V has clearly been met here. IMHO: you should just drop the other stuff focus on the WP:DUE weight question. Nblund ^talk 17:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no doubt Ngo was accused but my concern is this is a BLP. We can't say who made the accusation thus we can't properly attribute the claim. When we just say "he was called X" then we aren't that far from Wiki voice and we certainly don't allow the reader sufficient evidence to decide if the source of the claim was legitimate. Frequently we will have a case where the article subject does something. For example Reports said Ford recklessly produced a dangerous car. Then we can link to the specific reports where the accusation is made. What is really problematic is when we take what is in effect hearsay then treat it with minimal attribution. That's not OK, that's just perpetuating a rumor mill. If 500 Twitter nobodies flood Ngo's account with accusations that he's a racist that doesn't mean we put, "he was accused of racism" in the article in a way that implies the accusers are in effect RSs. Springee (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we should tell the reader that Ngo has been accused of Islamophobia, since it's true and it's prominently part of his reputation. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Then find the RS that says it's part of his reputation. Springee (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been following: is it literally, as presented, the isolated case of one article that Ngo authored? RECENTISM and UNDUE scream not to include unless this has created a wave of followup. Again, BLP are not laundry lists of every complaint leveled at a person, but should be a summary of the larger picture (Ngo is known negatively for other things that had much more substantial and RS coverage to be used). --Masem (t) 18:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Ngo has had several controversies related to his statements on Islam. The WSJ article seems to have been the most prominent, and Ngo himself has commented on the fairly widespread backlash to that particular piece. It comes up frequently in media accounts of his career (Buzzfeed, VoxThe Independent), and is useful context for why he is a polarizing figure. It might be more appropriate to talk about this as part of a larger subsection on his statements on Islam, but I don't think we can escape the discussion given how often it comes up. Nblund ^talk 18:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree with discussing the WSJ article. My concern is that a number of the quotes seem to be included simply as a way to weasel LABELs into the article. It's likely significant that the story was widely criticized for errors etc. If this resulted in a change to how he reported or where he worked that's significant. What isn't is the laundry list of particular quotes. Really, this is something that is a widespread problem on Wikipedia. You read an article and get the feeling the Wiki-editor wants the reader to morally condemn the subject of the article (person, organization, company etc). Rather than using a neutral tone to present the information we get "scare quotes". Since this is a LABEL and BLP concern, how is the article worse off for leaving out the contentious labels? Given it's a BLP shouldn't we err on the side of not using inflammatory labels even if we attribute them to others? Springee (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The full text of the current paragraph below:

On August 29, 2018, Ngo wrote an op-ed titled "A Visit to Islamic England" for The Wall Street Journal. In the article, Ngo wrote of his experiences in two neighborhoods in East London, including visits to a Mosque and an Islamic center. From these experiences, he concluded that London was afflicted with "failed multiculturalism". He falsely connected alcohol-free zones in parts of London to the Muslim-majority populations. Ngo was accused of Islamophobia[24][18][25][26][27][28] and subsequently issued a correction.[29][18][30][31] Alex Lockie from Business Insider criticized Ngo's article for "fear monger[ing] around England's Muslim population" and cherrypicking evidence, and for mischaracterizing the neighbourhood near the East London Mosque.[32] Steve Hopkins from HuffPost stated that "some of his [Ngo's] assertions have already been disproved".[33] Splinter News' Libby Watson described the op-ed as "racist".[34]

Most of the sources say the article was islamophobic. Some say he was accused but they don't name the accusers. I would also note that the last sentence, "the op-ed as racist" has questionable sourcing. Splinter News doesn't seem to be a very RS and why do we care about Libby Watson's opinion? Springee (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Given both Nblund and Springee's comments, I would simply "fold up" the specific article in question into the larger opinion that Ngo has written controversial pieces on Islam, without necessarily focusing on any one piece. --Masem (t) 18:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph lays it on a little thick with the quotes from his critics, but I do want to emphasize that WP:NPOV requires Wikipedia to cover notable controversies. Whether Ngo is Islamophobic is a matter of opinion, but whether he has been called Islamophobic (or accused of unfairly or inaccurately stigmatizing Muslims) is a matter of established fact. It's reasonable to mention the existence of this controversy, and it's reasonable to cite an example to substantiate that claim, it's also reasonable to cite Ngo's response. Nblund ^talk 19:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the assertions he has been called that seem both well-covered and, presented in summary, reasonable to include to understand why he is a controversial figure. But a point: NPOV does not require use to include all noted controversies, UNDUE should still be applied to cover those that are deemed more representative of the BLP in question. So one can argue that this issue over one article Ngo wrote is a notable controversy, in the larger picture, so much focus on it relative to the general opinion that Ngo is Islamaphobic is undue. (Again, my point that BLPs should not just be laundry lists of every negative comment made towards a person). --Masem (t) 19:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair point and agreed. Nblund ^talk 19:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

So to bring this back around, am I correct in saying that we have a general agreement that summarizing that the article caused controversy is DUE. I think we also agree that this needs to be more of a summary of the controversy rather than quoting of individual reactions. I'm less certain if we agree on the use of LABELS in the quoted responses and if people agree that if we can't trace a particular quote back to a particular source we should avoid it. I'm particularly concerned since the article says "he was accused of Islamaphobia" which certainly implies it could be true but none of the sources can trace back to any RS actually saying he (or even his article) is Islamaphobic. Springee (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Given that it seems that this article spawned a few articles of criticism that Ngo responded to, and has gone no further, detailed quotes from those that commented on Ngo's article are definitely inappropriate, giving excessive weight to a minor part of a larger issue. --Masem (t) 02:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we are usually better off avoiding quotes. If the primary objection is the use of the word "Islamophobia", I don't think it's essential to use that term, but readers should understand that some commentators accused Ngo of stirring up unfounded fears about Muslims. Nblund ^talk 19:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I think Islamophobic would be appropriate to use as a description of the article if it is used in the reliable sources. It appears to be adequately sourced, and is clearly about the article written by Ngo rather than about Ngo as a person. In response to a concern by Springee, reliable sources are not required to provide support for their statements, as that is the point of their editorial review and fact-checking that makes them reliable sources. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem is most sources about that article don't use the term and none use it in first person. That is, they say some unnamed people, Twitter comments etc, said it. Also, most of the sources don't pass RS muster. Springee (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources using a term in "first person" is only relevant if the Wikipedia text directly states something, and not in this case where the disputed language already includes "was accused of". "Unnamed people" making criticism is fine, as the Wikipedia article should reflect the sources in whether they name particular criticizers. For example, "Oregon Live reported that Ngo's article was 'widely panned as racist and Islamophobic'" would be a properly sourced and attributed. I think the issue is whether that type of attribution is needed. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

You are missing two critical issues. The first, is that the Wiki article doesn't say Ngo's WSJ article was accused, it says Ngo himself was accused. That isn't supported by Oregon Live. Second, not all sources critical of the article said it was panned as racist or Islamaphobic and none said that in first person. Since we are dealing with a contentious LABEL it must be attributed a RS saying "others said" doesn't cut it. As Masem noted, we should summarize, not pick the most inflammatory quotes used by only some sources. Springee (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Given that several sources mentioned that the article has been accused of being Islamophobic, and plenty of other sources have described accusations that fall within this mantle: racism, miscategorizing (i.e. lying about) the Muslim communities in London, spreading unwarranted fear, race baiting etc., it seems to me that the inclusion of this descriptor seems very due and important. BeŻet (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

First, you should note that you are an involved editor. Second, we don't have several sources that "accuse Ngo of...". We have a few reliable sources that say "the article was accused of being...". The sources that nake the extreme claims you are putting forth (racism, lying etc) are either not RS's or are saying "others said" but are unwilling to make the claim themselves. The description offered by unknown Twitter trolls et al is neither due nor important to a neutral telling of the facts. Springee (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Everyone working on improving the article is an "involved editor". With all due respect, arguing that there is a meaningful difference between accusing the article of being Islamophobic and accusing the author of the article of being Islamophobic is quiet nonsensical. The sources making the "extreme claims" are certiainly reliable sources (you constantly and relentlessly claim they aren't without backing it up with any regulations or past decisions, and it's time you stopped doing that) and we have handled them properly by using WP:INTEXT. It seems to me that quite a lot of editors have now explained all these things to you and you refuse to back down, therefore I am not sure how we should proceed from here. BeŻet (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you were the editor who added at least some of the material in question. Involved matters in terms of getting new/independent perspectives on the discussion. You have claim Commune Magazine and Newer are reliable but based on what? I have backed my unreliable claim, you have not supported yours. We don’t have in text attribution since you can’t say who made the claim. Masem et al are correct, the quotes are undue. Springee (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't, I just added additional sources. You have claim Commune Magazine and Newer are reliable but based on what? - Because it's a magazine with editorial oversight and there hasn't been anything suggesting they have a poor reputation for checking the facts. I have backed my unreliable claim - I don't remember seeing that, I just remember you referencing their tagline with absolutely no explaination whatsoever, as if the tagline has anything to do with their reputation for checking the facts. I've asked you several times to provide any rules or guidelines that are broken by those sources, and you've never delivered. We don’t have in text attribution since you can’t say who made the claim. - That's exactly my point, there is no need for in text attribution because the article has been widely considered Islamophobic. BeŻet (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, I see you added the "racist" quote that came from The Splinter (no evidence they are a RS) [[39]]. That is more of a DUE question since there is no evidence that Op-Ed should have any weight. Springee (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Springee: maybe you could pitch a version of what you're talking about? I'm really fine with any wording that accurately characterizes the accusations. @Wallyfromdilbert: I basically agree, but I don't see any harm if we can get the same idea across with less "charged" language. The essence of the accusation is that he has made exaggerated or inaccurate claims that present Muslims as threatening to the west. Its possible to say that without the word "Islamophobic". Nblund ^talk 17:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that language other than "Islamophobic" could be used. While it seems like an appropriate summary of the criticism to me, I would also be interested in seeing suggested alternatives from Springee. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll propose a rewrite of the material in the next few days. That hopefully can make all at least less unhappy. To be clear, I don't mind including the criticism but far too many of our articles read is if the intent of the editors is to ensure readers hate the subject rather than understand the subject. Note: that isn't to say that the editors are acting in bad faith. I've been accused of whitewashing articles in the past when I had no such intention. Either way, it's better to explain the details rather than just quote the inflammatory words. That seems to be a view held by a number of editors. Springee (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

While I don't really plan to get too involved in this discussion, I do agree that Islamophobia" is a poor choice of word. First, it's not even a real word but a slang term. The word "phobia" suggests a medical/physiological phenomenon, which is an uncontrollable, irrational fear of something. However, we seem to use the term as an equal for "hatred", which is not at all the same thing. My sister, for example, has an uncontrollable, irrational fear of snakes. She does not hate them by any means, but cannot even look at a picture of one because it gives her the willies. I think this trend arose from the use of the word to describe hatred against homosexuals, but even homophobe is a slang term that gives that connotation of an uncontrollable fear rather than a dislike, and people shouldn't be ridiculed over a physiological conditions they cannot help. (If anyone should understand this you'd think it would be homosexuals.) Likewise, if someone truly has an uncontrollable fear of Islam it also should not be a thing of ridicule but a real psychological condition they cannot help. I'm not seeing any real phobia here, but rather a misuse of the term, so I think at best we should find a more intelligent way to say it. Zaereth (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not a forum to push fringe person opinions as you do here. Challenging the very legitimacy of the term Islamophobia is a non-starter. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Islamophobia is not a slang term, it's widely used and well defined, and using the term is definitely "intelligent". BeŻet (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

This: Not all words that end in "phobia" are proper medical terms related to psychologically-determined fears. "Xenophobia" is common to discuss broader, non-psychological fears related to foreigners, for example. But I would stress that "xenophobia" and "Islamophobia" are labels so if used must require the proper sourcing from RSes and inline attribution. --Masem (t) 15:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Contentions that the subject/their work is Islamophobic (and racist) appear to be entirely DUE. I find the argument that these words are “inflammatory” rather than descriptive to be an odd one which I am unable to see the merits of, other than whitewashing that is. I also note that those objecting to the word's existence, like User:Zaereth has done, are advancing a fringe argument that is not accepted by mainstream academics and is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you are addressing the issue here. Also, LABEL explicitly says that we need to consider the use of inflammatory terms carefully. Your attack on Zaereth's concerns ignores the inflamatory nature of the label which is part of the question here. Springee (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Lawrence Academy (Groton, Massachusetts)

Lawrence Academy (Groton, Massachusetts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are a couple of SPAs who are slowly edit-warring here to re-add some superficially referenced content regarding a sexual-abuse issue from a past decade. I am not able to take the time right now because of IRL deadlines/my proverbial cup overflowing to determine whether the alleged perpetrator is the subject of a WP:RS identifying him, but my internal warning buzzer is going off loudly that this may not be okay. I apologize for not being able to deal with this myself. Thanks in advance. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• It seems that the content being added [40] is vastly out of proportion to what would be WP:DUE. It furthermore appears from the added text that the contributor(s) may have a conflict of interest in the topic, e.g. the last paragraph would violate WP:ADS. That said, there are two local paper stories on the topic [41][42], and a Boston globe story that's behind a paywall [43]. -Darouet (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• In addition... in the version that I recently removed, which had also been previously re-added by at least one editor who should know better, large parts of the material, including claims about living persons, were emphatically not supported by the sources cited. MPS1992 (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging two other experienced editors Aviartm and KylieTastic so you can discuss with MPS1992 here. -Darouet (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, I had reverted the edit flagged on 'Recent changes' as dubious as it was a large removal without adequate explanation and I had done two additional checks: firstly that it appeared to have some valid sources, and secondly that the IP had only edited to remove negative content on this subject and a geolocate showed they were from the local area invoked so appeared to have a clear bias and trying to whitewash. I admit I did not read/verify the the entire section but failed to notice the section had been created and re-created by the same one purpose account (at least they asked for constructive feedback on why it was not up to our standards [44]). Having a quick scan I totally agree that it cannot stand in the form it was when included, the completely unsourced sections/sentences definitely have to go. However I would say the sources indicate enough to merit inclusion. It appears we have an editor who is probably trying to add the content in good faith but does not appear to be neutral and it shows in the wording and extension from the sources, and a local IP editor who would appear to be trying to whitewash the events probably related to the subjects (people and/or academy). So what I believe this needs is an impartial editor to review and add back a shorter, neutrally written, properly sourced section and for the two involved warring editors to be told that additions or removals must have well supported sources or reasons. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

User User:Optimistaverdad is doubling down on this and not apparently reading talk-page messages from multiple editors requesting that they cease and desist with re-adding this content. There was an insinuation of "bullying" in one of their edit summaries. I welcome suggestions as to further steps; I think this is past the point where a block is probably appropriate but I don't want to vex anyone with requesting same at the wrong venue (is this edit-warring, or AIV-adjacent, or ANI-requiring?). Thanks again for paying attention to this! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes the information as presented is WP:undue but I don’t understand the grounds for removing the material entirely rather than editing it. Instead of the current eight paragraphs compressing the information into two or three paragraphs would give this important subject due coverage. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with what has been said thus far. The section in question should be more concise. The material does merit include on the Wikipedia page. I am willing to refine it initially and if anyone else is willing to work on it afterwards and over time, fine by me. Initially when I saw the large removal of bits, I thought that does not make sense considering the material being on the page for some time and containing reliable citations, that is why I reverted it a couple of times back. Aviartm (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Lee Hsien Loong and the attempted removal of negative content about him by IP users

There are many reliable substantiation of controversies by the current Prime Minister of Singapore that are now removed in this BLP repeatedly by IP users. One example is the practice of Nepotism by Singapore's ruling government. The current Prime Minister is the son of the first Prime Minister, and many of his family members hold key posts in the government. Another content he reduced was the liberal suits against foreign press. He reason for the removal was because the suit was settled, which is a really poor argument. The content written about nepotism in Lee Hsien Loong's page (which was duly cited with reliable sources) was also removed without any strong arguments. Another attempt was to mask other controversies by messing around the subheadings around the BLP page without consulting anyone in the talk page. The effort was made and any attempt to undo the changes was reverted. Singapore's General Election is coming and there may be house-keeping attempts by certain users to turn the BLP page to something more positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretSquirrel78 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that if it was properly sourced the removal is not justified. You should however stop edit warring with the IP and seek venues for dispute resolution, as you both have stepped over the three revert rule since the removal done by the IP is not obvious vandalism, specially since the subject is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Also please note that at least on the last revert, the removed content was not explicitly sourced by the reference so deleting it was justified. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

SecretSquirrel78 From the reverts I don't see content removed, but rather a reorganisation. This can be discussed on the talk page.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Should we use an opinion piece in the Washington Examiner for a BLP issue at Racial hoax?

This concerns Erica Thomas who was involved in an incident at a Publix store. Our article on her says "On July 19, 2019, Thomas was in a Publix supermarket express lane when she alleged a man "degraded and berated" her. Thomas later contacted police requesting the man be charged. Upon completion of their investigation, the Cobb County police announced no charges would be filed."

The incident is being added to Racial hoax as an "alleged hoax" first by User:AyaK without sources calling it any kind of hoax. I reverted and they restored, after my 2nd revert it was restored by User:Wtmitchell who also started a discussion at Talk:Racial hoax#Erica Thomas incident. I think that was the wrong way around, discuss and get consensus before restoring for a BLP issue. This time however a different source was used[45] an opinion piece (as WtMitchell noted) from the Washington Examiner, a conservative news source. Our perennial sources page says "There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. The Washington Examiner publishes opinion columns, which should be handled with the appropriate guideline." I think we need to be very careful about even calling something an "alleged hoax" when there are BLP issues, even more so when the person holds political office (she's a Democrat and Black, perhaps it's no surprise a conservative news outlet was interested). I also think that if her main article doesn't call his an "alleged hoax" we shouldn't call it that elsewhere. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a case where I would say the WashExam is reliable for their op-ed opinion of the issue but I would have two concerns with this edit. By including the incident in the wiki article on such incidents we are basically confirming this in Wiki voice. Thomas's version of the story is not conniving but saying this was a racial hoax implies a deliberate motive. A single op-ed isn't sufficient either in terms of DUE or reliable sourcing given we are effectively saying "She set out to lie about this". Even if this were not an op-ed I would still be concerned about DUE given this would fall under BLP restrictions. We don't know if this was a deliberate action by Thomas or if she honestly thought her version of events was factual. Unless we have RSing showing she knowingly lied, I would say keep it out. I certainly don't think the single OpEd is sufficient for such a damning claim in wiki voice. Springee (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

If WashExam is the only source calling a racial hoax, it does not belong. First, in general, opinion pieces of any type should not be used to include items on a list like racial hoax, incidents should be called "racial hoax" in the news reporting of RSes, not from op-eds. This is further tainted by the reputation of the WashExim which has a known bias in this area, and thus their opinions should be avoided if they are the solitary source being used. --Masem (t) 13:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Masem and adopt his position in full. We should not describe anything as an "alleged" racial hoax unless the allegations are substantiated by something like formal criminal charges, disciplinary action, etc. - we need far more than a single partisan op-ed in a partisan source to make such a description. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Given that its an opinion piece from a publication not explicitly considered reliable we need to take the author into consideration, [46] the author not being a subject matter expert or reliable journalist this would appear to disqualify this article’s use for any purpose on wikipedia even to cite non-contentous information. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• It's a clear BLP violation to add this material to racial hoax with this source. The source is far below the bar for negative material about living people, and it's a bit alarming that this is considered a gray area. MastCell ^Talk 16:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

References

I am the editor who most recently restored this now re-deleted item to the article. The item has been in and out of the article multiple times since its unsupported insertion in this 23 July insertion with discussion of its merits, unless I've missed something, having taken place by exchange of edit summaries in inserting and removing edits. Looking back at that I see that, though I don't recall having done so, I supplied a supporting source in a subsequent edit. I haven't researched insertions and removals beyond that but, after seeing the recent insertions and removals, it seemed to me that this ought to be more clearly and more visibly decided after a consensus discussion on the article talk page. Accordingly, after a removal with an edit summary pointing out that the then-cited source did not call this a hoax, I restored it with a cite of a source which did call it a hoax. The source I cited did go to the point of the most recent removal but was an opinion piece. I pointed that out and mentioned due weight in a talk page discussion I initiated to explain my action. Beyond that, I did not take an advocacy position regarding this one way or the other, and have no present intention of doing so. That talk page discussion contains a wikilink to this discussion here, and I will mention and wikilink my comment here in that discussion. Whichever way the editorial consensus comes out on the article talk page, that discussion can stand as a record of the consensus arrived at there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitesh_Narayan_Rane

The sentences have been written in patronising tone and the person in question has not done enough to warrant a page here,he is infamous in India for his acts of violence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.211.191.103 (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

You might find this two pages useful: General notability guidelines and policy on biographies of living persons. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Twin Galaxies legal team responds to Billy Mitchell's defamation allegations

Competitive video game player Billy Mitchell has threatened legal action against Twin Galaxies, alleging that the organization has defamed him. A key aspect of the defense against Mitchell's defamation allegations is the fact that Twin Galaxies has never claimed he cheated. The response from the Twin Galaxies legal team can be conveniently viewed in this tweet: https://mobile.twitter.com/ersatz_cats/status/1177840834311385088 ... The relevant paragraph is at the top of the third page. For verification, the document can also be found at the Twin Galaxies website here: https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/176004-Dispute-Jeremy-Young-Arcade-Donkey-Kong-Points-Hammer-Allowed-Player-Billy-L-Mitchell-Score-1-062-800?p=1056699&viewfull=1#post1056699 ... The problem with Mitchell's Wikipedia biography is a section discussing his disputed score performances under the section header "Cheating": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell_(video_game_player)#Cheating ... My recommendation would be to change the section header to "Disputed score performances" in keeping with official statements from Twin Galaxies. The section also contains a statement which isn't supported by the cited source: "Young's analysis has been criticized by Mitchell as being from an altered tape that otherwise matches Mitchell's gameplay pixel-for-pixel ..." Mitchell has never criticized Young's analysis in this way, and my recommendation would be to remove that entire sentence. The article is currently protected. I've raised the issue of the accusatory section header with administrator Sergecross73 more than once on the article's talk page, and he's responded, incorrectly in my opinion, that it isn't a BLP violation. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

This is completely fair, and I will make that change (knowing enough of the situation), and make sure wording is consistent. --Masem (t) 22:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Also I checked on that sentence and technically you are correct, but it is more about specificity and misplaced sources. Mitchell did suggest that Young's tape was fabricated, to which Young, in a separate article, explained why it likely wasn't. I've fixed that sentence to make sure the prose follows the sourcing and the sourcing follows needed quotes. --Masem (t) 22:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: Thanks for your prompt response to the BLP violations, as well as for all of your additional improvements to the article. I believe Mitchell suggested Dwayne Richard had altered the footage from the original tape by splicing in MAME footage when the barrel boards were loading, not by fabricating a tape that "matches Mitchell's gameplay pixel-for-pixel". That was the heart of the BLP violation, which you appear to have addressed in a way that's faithful to the sources. Thanks again. 208.53.226.47 (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, my main stance was that they should start a new discussion about the concern, and make an edit request about it, because the initial concern was brought up deep within a discussion about something else. The IP instead decided to...wait 5 days and then bring the discussion here instead? A bizarre choice for someone who thinks an issue is an urgent BLP violation where there was no time to discuss it in the talk page. But that’s what they do. The page get protected, often because of their own efforts of edit warring, editing against consensus, and not using sources, and then they call everything a BLP violation from the talk page in a effort to circumvent discussion, which they likely avoid because they’ve historically had a very hard time persuading anyone into a consensus they’re aiming for. Masem, feel free to adjust as you see fit, I trust your judgment. The article isn’t perfect, it’s just that this IP has largely exasperating the patience of most of the articles maintainers with endless bickering and refusal to follow basic protocol like starting discussions and getting a consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 00:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: To be clear, I'd asked you whether the accusatory "Cheating" section header was a BLP violation five days ago, and you'd ignored the question. Today I'd asked again, and you'd finally responded that it wasn't a BLP violation. That was your "main stance", and it was incorrect in my opinion. That's why I brought the discussion here, and contrary to one of your many reckless false accusations above, there's nothing "bizarre" about it. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who'd like to evaluate your claims is more than welcome to read the article's talk page, as well as the previous discussions you've unilaterally closed and archived. 208.53.226.47 (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Just previous to that I told you how to handle it. Must I copy/paste that response every time you pose similar questions on the talk page? Again, your ”it’s so blatant there’s no time for discussion but also let’s wait five days to bring it up elsewhere” stance is baffling every time you do it. But that aside, thank you for finally opening up a new discussion for your new concern, rather than raising it 20 comments into an unrelated discussion. Hopefully this shows you the benefits of opening up new discussions as you’ve been instructed to do repeatedly in the past. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Apparently I don't have as much time to devote to Wikipedia as you do, and my understanding is that, per Wikipedia policy, BLP violations should be removed without waiting for discussion. 208.53.226.47 (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that you don’t understand what BLP issues are so problematic that they require instant removal. An example. “An article subject is a poopface”. Blatant violation, erase on sight. But so many of your interactions play out like:

• • • • • • IP: (10 comments into an unrelated discussion) Excuse me, the article says the subject has blue eyes. Actually, they’re green.
          • Editors: Please start a discussion and provide your reliable sources.
          • IP: But this is very false and misleading and defamatory and he’s a BLP so per BLP you must delete this at once.
          • Editors: That is not so bad that it needs instant removal. Please start a discussion.
          • IP: (Idle complaining for days/weeks without opening a discussion that would ever garner participants that would get to any sort of consensus)

Hopefully we’ve finally broken the cycle with you actually opening a separate discussion up for once. Sergecross73 msg me 03:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: It's interesting that you, as an administrator, refer to yourself as "Editors" (plural). WP:BLP seems to indicate that BLP violations should be removed "without waiting for discussion" regardless of whether the material is "negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". I don't see any requirement for the material to meet your criterion of being especially "problematic". 208.53.226.47 (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't really know or care to know what's going on here but Sergecross73 is right if you treat someone's eye colour as an urgent BLP vio requiring immediate correction you're not going to get very far here. This isn't to say it shouldn't be corrected, but even BLP, as with all policies, requires using a little common sense in application. Also we are all volunteers, and there are so many problems. Ultimately someone has to do the work and so per WP:SOFIXIT, it might as well be you. If you aren't willing or able to do the work, then you can't magically expect all problems to be fixed no matter how urgent you think they are. I don't think moaning about how others aren't fixing some problem and you "don't have as much time to devote to Wikipedia as" other helps much when Talk:Billy Mitchell (video game player) is full of extremely long posts from the person who made the comment. Nil Einne (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: You're right when you say you don't know what's going on here. Administrator Sergecross73's suggestion that I've treated someone's eye color as a BLP violation is just another installment in his months-long series of lies and personal smears against me. With that said, I'd probably treat eye color as a BLP violation if an editor were repeatedly reinserting unsourced, objectively false information about it even after being directly told it was false, which is a very good analogy for what Wallyfromdilbert was doing with his repeatedly reinserted insinuations that Billy Mitchell had been driven out of competitive gaming. I'd be glad to "do the work" fixing the many obvious flaws in Mitchell's biography, but Sergecross73 has falsely accused me of multiple policy violations as a pretext for repeatedly restoring page protection to the article. I'm sorry if it seems to you that I'm "moaning". To me it seems that I'm correcting ruthless lies. Rest assured that the time I've dedicated to what you call "extremely long" comments on the talk page is time I would have much rather dedicated to improving articles. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It was just a hypothetical example to illustrate your poor understand of BLP. And judging by your responses so far, it was spot on, as you’ve yet to object conceptually. You seem to think that’s proper application of BLP. It’s not. Sergecross73 msg me 22:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: If there's no reliable source for a claim that the subject has blue eyes, WP:BLP says very clearly that the claim should be removed "without waiting for discussion". We obviously disagree about which of us has a poor understanding of the policy. 208.53.226.47 (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

My scenario never said there were no sources though. Nor would I ever suggest that. If there were no sources, then it could be removed per WP:V. You appear to be missing the point entirely. Sergecross73 msg me 04:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: From my perspective you appear to be the one who's missing the point entirely. There were no reliable sources for Wallyfromdilbert's repeatedly reinserted insinuations that Billy Mitchell had been driven out of competitive gaming. If there are reliable sources in your scenario, then you're smearing me with a blatantly false analogy, which is even more deceitful. 208.53.226.47 (talk) 04:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Not accurate. In fact, your characterization was so off, no one even knew what you were talking about. At no point did the article say he was “driven from his profession”. Somebody added the word “former” next to his profession. Right or wrong, that’s not a BLP violation in itself. And you refused to discuss, explain, or provide sourcing, you just kept yelling “BLP BLP!”, so your change wasn’t made. (At the time you couldn’t make the change yourself because the page was protected from you edit warring and editing without consensus multiple times.) But above all, the change wasn’t made because you refused to explain. Multiple times I pointed out that I didn’t understand the requested change, because I did a “control F” and didn’t see the word “driven” in the article once. I asked you to provide a WP:DIF of the change you wanted. You refused. I asked for an exact change request per WP:EDITREQUEST. You refused. People literally couldn’t help you because you refused to articulate your request. Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: As I've explained to you over and over on the talk page, I undid exactly one revision to the article without attempting to improve the content, and I only did so to call attention to the fact that Wallyfromdilbert and Smuckola were repeatedly obliterating my contributions while refusing to clarify their objections or engage in any back-and-forth discussion whatsoever. I don't see how a reasonably honest and intelligent administrator could continue to construe that as "edit warring". I'd addressed your other accusations more than two weeks ago in this comment on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=916655648 208.53.226.47 (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This isn’t the venue to discuss your edit-warring and editing without consensus. Honestly, unless you’ve got any more requests related to BLP content to make, there’s no reason this conversation needs to keep going at all. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: There are many reasons for this conversation to keep going, but on the article's talk page, not here. 208.53.226.47 (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Angelyne

The information on this page cited using the Hollywood Reporter article is false. Angelyne is requesting the article be stricken from the page. She has offered to share government issued documents if it is the only way the Hollywood Reporter references be taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewll (talk • contribs) 22:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The best way would be if the source retracted itself. Did the subject tried contacting the Hollywood Reporter. Alternatively if another independent, more reliable source, could publish the alternative information that could also be used. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I see Angelyne has claimed that there are a lot of inaccuracies but they're too voluminous to discuss [47]. I also wondered if the details added meet WP:BLPPRIVACY as we only have the Hollywood Reporter story. However a quick check found it was covered in other sources like the Washington Post [48] so we're probably into well published territory. I do wonder if our article is too strong. While Hollywood Reporter made the claim that it was her, and is I think an RS, sources like the WP and others [49] seem to just treat this as a claim of theirs. I did find one source which seem to accept the claim as correct [50]. How well accepted is it that the Hollywood Reporter story is correct on the subject's identity? If it isn't generally accepted as definite, we should reword our article. Nil Einne (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

One intermediate solution that I can think of, is to add attribution on any controversial point added by the Hollywood Reporter and also to include that the subject questioned the accuracy for some of the statements by that source along with the reference to the interview. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Rashid Buttar

[Rashid Buttar] The article displays extreme bias against Dr. Buttar. We are aware of his work and the successes he has had in treating patients. The article is entirely negative. As such it is damaging to the professional reputation and character of the individual. I have tried to reduce it to the first two sentences only, but that edit, whilst factual, has been rejected. Please consider removing the page. It is better to have no page than a very incomplete and negatively biased item. Thank-you, Dr. Adrian P. Wade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ursatech (talk • contribs) 00:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

A WP-article is meant to be a summary of the WP:Reliable sources (as defined by WP) that exists on a topic. If those sources come down on the "negative" side, that's fine, the article can still be WP:NEUTRAL, we don't want WP:FALSEBALANCE. I have not checked the sources in any detail, but at a glance, the article seem ok-ish from the WP-perspective. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Steve Salerno

I am the subject of the article, author/journalist Steve Salerno. I do not have an actual Wikipedia account. However, someone has defaced my page by including a reference to a tweet I made on Oct. 4, claiming that it is "highly controversial." In reality, as of today, Oct. 5, this "highly controversial" tweet has not received a single reply or retweet. I believe this to be malicious vandalism by someone with whom I briefly engaged, and then blocked, on Twitter. Certainly this addition to my page violates rules on neutrality and does not constitute a "noteworthy" addition to my bio.

here again is my page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Salerno — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:3:400:20AA:35A0:E925:3366 (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I see that you have already reverted it [51] and I do agree that this doesn't deserve to be included. If you are the subject of the article, the correct procedure is to to request an edit on the talk page of the article. You can refer to WP:EDITREQ for the instructions. Usually these requests are answered soon enough.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Does that policy still apply when it's a BLP violation? Those are typically supposed to be immediately removed. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Even if the removal can be justified on our policies and was uncontroversial, it can not be classified as vandalism, defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly, so per WP:COISELF, in the future you should request the edit as advised by DreamLinker. I have put the article on my watchlist and if it happens again I'll remove it myself. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Claim that Emilia Clarke has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Emilia Clarke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Emilia Clarke#Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder claim. At the talk page, I argued that "Per WP:REDFLAG, what other sources state that she has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder? If it's true, other reliable sources should confirm it. That is what WP:REDFLAG, a policy, is about in cases such as these. I just Googled the matter and I am not seeing anything. Is the French magazine an exclusive interview? I will alert the WP:BLP noticeboard to this matter for more opinions." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking at it, nope, it's not an exclusive interview. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

(Copying what I said on her talk page) Translated from French the June 2018 article says:

"The 1.57-meter mini-model has had an exceptional ride that now leads her to the Hollywood throne. Enough to give strength to all children, suffering like her from the syndrome of attention deficit with hyperactivity (TDHA) and for which the actress takes a treatment." [52]

It is strange that there is only one source reporting on her having ADHD and that the source itself doesn't seem to have actually interviewed her-- it seems to be based on Emilia's instagram posts. I don't think it's impossible that she really does have ADHD, it's just strange there aren't better/more sources reporting it. The top hit on google [53] appears to be an August 2017 reddit post that mentions its source for the claim as wikipedia... but that's before the article was published... Was this claim previously on wikipedia? 24.217.247.41 (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

(Copying what I said on her talk page) Ok, I understand your concern and I suggest we keep this out until we find a better source. I'm positive better sources exist though, because I clearly remember her mentioning her ADHD herself in an interview. It was in a morning show called "This Morning!" in the UK. She mentioned this quickly when talking about an anecdote (that she lost a data collector job due to her hyperactivity). Unfortunately, I can't find it online at the moment, but there are some links on google from conversations referring to it (i.e a reddit conversation, and a lipstickalley conversation, an IMDB list, etc etc.) Also, when googling about this in French, there are much more credible sources that mention her diagnosis and use of medication (Ritalin), notably Le Figaro on this page, as well as other french magazines. This suggests that she probably also mentioned having ADHD in an interview that took place in French. Leave it out for now, but I will look for the This Morning! interview when I have more time, and if I can't find it (or if copyright issues arise) I will look at interviews in France. Gaolinual (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced Claim that Philosopher "threatened" Brian Leiter

Brian Leiter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Currently, another user:Philosophy Junkie continues to insist that the following phrase "who Leiter claimed had threatened him" in reference to Carrie Jenkins should remain in the article,[54][55][56] despite the fact that it is NOT supported by the referenced Chronicle of Higher Ed article[57] or any other WP:RS.

Philosophy Junkie claims a 1st person, self-published blog post by Brian Leiter, not included as a reference in the article, is an acceptable source for the claim.[58][59] However, I think the unsourced and unsubstantiated claim should be removed. Leiter's blog post is not an acceptable source for this claim about Carrie Jenkins because it violates the first two rules of WP:BLPSELFPUB: it involves claims about third parties and it is unduly self-serving, as I noted months ago on the talk page.

Is this a BLP violation against Carrie Jenkins and should Brian Leiter's blog post be an acceptable source for claims about 3rd parties "threatening" him? 24.217.247.41 (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

In my view, the applicable policy (WP:BLP) is quite clear about this. It says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." This claim has been challenged (it's been removed more than once) and therefore it must be supported by a reliable citation. It currently isn't cited in this way. Unless a source can be found (which is reliable, not the subject's own blog), the claim has no place in the article. It's not a matter of whether any of us thinks the claim is correct or not, it's a matter of Wikipedia policy which says a reliable source is required. Neiltonks (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

User 24.217.247.41 misstates both the source and what the entry asserts. Please see the discussion under 'Edit Warring' at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.217.247.41.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It would be better if such discussions are held on article talk pages in the future, so they are more easily accessible by other editors. Regardless I see no justification for the statement from that discussion. Someone "asked if she planned to spit at him or chase him with a baseball bat" cannot be interpreted to mean that this person is accusing the other person of threatening them without further context or information. It could be that this person was being sarcastic or simply trying to make a point (e.g. you sound so angry, should I be worried about violence next?). Alleged defamation (that already happened) is not a threat, well unless the defamation includes a threat. (To give a random example "if you don't do X, I'm going to write a blog post saying you're a murderer" could be called a threat. Although "threaten" often means threaten with violence so any such reference would need to be clear what form the threat took. Writing a blog posting accusing someone of being a murderer cannot be called a threat. At best, it's following through on a threat. A threat could be in that blog post e.g. If it ends with "Turn yourself in to the police by the weeks end or this will be your last week on earth". ) Nil Einne (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I read the article differently and think the context supports the summary. But as I suggested to user 24.217.247.41, perhaps a different word would be better than "threatened," such as "criticized" or "attacked." Thanks. Philosophy Junkie (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Attacked is not necessarily wrong, but without clarification it's unclear what sort of 'attack' is meant e.g. physical. Criticised is better. But IMO if we do want to mention something it will be better to just briefly summarise what was said. Jenkins wrote a blog post vowing to treat other philosophers with respect and to speak up about perceived mistreatment and mentioned unprofessional behaviour. Leiter considered the blog post a thin veiled attack on himself. (This is an example of 'attack' where it's clear from the context what is meant.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I agree with you re the use of "attack" or any other verbs that fail to provide the context of the blog post-- which was a pledge to behave civilly. Here's the wording that I proposed back in July for describing the 2014 incident that led to Leiter's resignation from PGR, but Philosophy Junkie blanket reverted any changes I made to the article. What do you think?

In July 2014 Leiter sent an email to Carrie Jenkins, which was later posted online, calling Jenkins a "sanctimonious asshole" and threatening legal action regarding a statement she published online pledging to behave with civility in her professional life. While Jenkins’s post made no reference to Leiter, Leiter read the statement as being about him, because at that time he was under fire on blogs in his field for his recent harsh rebuke of a critic of his rankings. In September 2014, more than 600 philosophers signed a statement describing the email as "derogatory and intimidating" and declining to volunteer information for the Philosophical Gourmet Report while it was under the control of Leiter. In October 2014, Leiter agreed to step down as editor of PGR, after a majority of the advisory board asked for his resignation.

24.217.247.41 (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

John Bucchino

John Bucchino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I happened to notice this edit which deletes statements regarding sexual orientation, with the comment "I am John Bucchino. I cut out a couple of outdated references." I also noticed the links are not dead, so it's possible he (assuming it's him) means the statements are no longer true. I have no idea and have never heard of this person before, but perhaps his article needs some extra attention. The categories, maybe. ―cobaltcigs 06:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

As it appears there is no desire to replace the content, I have removed the corresponding categories. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• I left him a welcome WP:COI template. All the stuff removed appears referenced. I won't put it back myself, not unless a consensus arises here. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ali al-Sistani

I disagree with @LissanX: over the content of this diff, as I feel like it misrepresents the content of the source by making it seem like the clerics engaged in pimping are followers of Ali al-Sistani and/or are doing this with his tacit approval while none of the sources explicitly say that is the case.--Catlemur (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Catlemur. The cited sources all specifically mention Sistani, directly quote his own book, post Sistani's reply to their content, and contains video footage of a Sistani-affiliated cleric who is seen on footage reiterating Sistani's fatwas. In addition to all of this, the sources are specifically centered on the Iraqi Shia religious establishment, which is headed and administered by Ali Sistani (and to a lesser, negligible extent Mohammad Yaqoobi). — LissanX (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Catlemur. I also believe this material should not be included as written. It is misleading, poorly sourced for a BLP (the tabloid Daily Star (United Kingdom) has a history of fabricating stories and images), and most importantly, as Catlemur states the articles cited aren't even about al-Sistani (in fact, the Daily Star article itself quotes al-Sistani as condemning the actions of individual cleric). The behavior is despicable but this is a BLP article and if al-Sistani is implicated in these cases, we need legitimately reliable sources explicitly stating it.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 21:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, the Daily Star is generally considered less reliable than the Daily Mail so I would say yes, contentious material about BLPs definitely has to go if exclusively sourced to the Daily Star. Nil Einne (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

BTW one of the key reasons for my "exclusively" comment is that it looks like the BBC is another ref. Some sentences are only tagged with the Daily Star which are probably a problem but it's possible the content is supported by the BBC it just wasn't tagged. Some have both the BBC and the Daily Star, these need to be checked to ensure what they say is supported by the BBC. Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

John Draper

• John Draper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd appreciate some more eyes on this article. Multiple allegations of inappropriate sexual activities surfaced in 2017 and the subject has admitted that the allegations are true, but disputes that there was sexual intent. Various IPs have been trying to completely remove the content or downplay it, labelling it as "tabloid journalism", "a hitpiece", "circumstantial" and based off "social media". To me, the sourcing seems extremely solid and given that the subject admits the events occurred, they are not just allegations, but I don't have much experience with walking the delicate line on a subject such as this. SmartSE (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this draft autobiography a BLP violation?

Draft:Antonio Silvestro (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Antonio Silvestro|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is pretty crazy and both names his parents and says " liars relatives preventing his 'Mixed Martial Arts' (MMA) skills to brutally emerge before then his hilarity." I doubt he'll last long, but.... Doug Weller talk 15:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Note another copy at User:SilvestroAntonio - and along with their other edits just self promotion. KylieTastic (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I've just blocked him, he's only here to promote himself and has ignored the warnings, including the COI one. He's violated our Terms of Use. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)\
    • To be fair, I see he put a COI noticed on his user page. He still carried on promoting himself. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Sean McManus

I would like for the Wikipedia Bio of Sean McManus (television executive) updated. It should reflect his CBS bio which can be accessed here: https://www.cbspressexpress.com/cbs-sports/executives/view?id=71170.20.11.14 (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

list of NObel laureates by university affiliation

I found two mistakes in this article: First, Seamus Heaney should also be credited to Harvard University. He was Harvard's Boylston Professor of Rhetoric. Second, T.S. Eliot should also be credited to Harvard. He was an alumnus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anglcan (talk • contribs) 18:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Anglcan: Eliot is clearly outside the scope of this noticeboard; I think Heaney is as well. In either case, Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation is probably the best place to discuss the issue of which university (or universities) to associate winners with. —C.Fred (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Gregg L. Semenza

Hi friends, my question is: should an unsourced birthdate be removed? Someone added a birthdate for this biography of a recent Nobel Prize winner (just posted to the main page) and the editor did not reply (yet anyway) to my request for a source for it. Should the birthdate be removed? I have not found a source mentioning his birthdate. Thanks. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. If you can approximate the year from other sources, that's fine, but the exact date needs a good ref. --Masem (t) 16:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I have removed the date. I can't find anyone other than Wikipedia who had it so far. If I can find anything, will put it back.70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Without a source the date should always be removed per WP:BLPPRIVACY and general BLP policies. In situations like this I'd suggest it's actually extremely urgent to remove the date. Given the active interest in the subject at the moment, there's a strong risk of citogenesis if the date is allowed to stay on. Even a few hours are risky. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Ritvik arora

Article has no valid source reference for date of birth and age.Also Information about the personality has not been described properly or in detail.Repeated vandalism edits are being made in the career section which ought to be in the about personality section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfmade323 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Try to discuss your issues at Talk:Ritvik Arora. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Harry Nuttall (racing driver)

I don't have time tonight, but if someone can please clean up Harry Nuttall (racing driver) - it reads like a CV! GiantSnowman 15:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Peter Handke

Hi again, I'm worried that the controversy section in Peter Handke (just announced as a Nobel Literature winner) takes up almost half the article in its current state. But I don't know enough about policies to know how much a problem this is or how it should be fixed. Isn't there something about undue weight? I don't seem to be able to find a relevant tag. Guidance or extra eyes appreciated! 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

For my part I don't think it's unreasonable that the controversies take up almost half Peter Handke. Especially with the recent Nobel Prize, which has drawn fresh international attention to these controversies. Bishonen | talk 21:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC).

Stefano Barberi

I am Stefano Barberi, the person in which this "biograph" is about. i dont know who created this biograph or who has been updating it but it contained previous edits with libelous content linking Stefano Barberi to an unrelated person by the name of "Ivan Stevic". I, Stefano Barberi have nothing to do with Ivan Stevic and would like all mentions of said person permanently removed and unassociated with my biograph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefano barberi (talk • contribs) 18:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. While we usually don't want people editing their own article, I'm not going to revert you because all that stuff needed to go. It was pure original research using almost all primary sources. Even the one or two secondary sources were not very good, for example, the Velo News article about Stevic does not mention the subject once, and I'm not sure any of the other support the claims either.

As it stands, the article has been completely gutted and has no references whatsoever, so I think it should be deleted entirely until if and when good, reliable sources can be found. Zaereth (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Clinton allegations at Epstein

Well-sourced and relatively long-standing material was removed from the Jeffrey Epstein article. Editors are interpreting the BLP guidelines quite differently.

In the Epstein article, names and allegations, denials or responses from people such as Trump, Alan Dershowitz, Ghislaine Maxwell, Bill Richardson, Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton, are included. The section regarding Bill Clinton has been causing problems. A NYT article was used to state that a claim from Virginia Guffre in recently unsealed court documents about Clinton and his presence on Little Saint James Island was retracted. The article was not clear about exactly which claim they meant, and the NYT has been contacted about the error (no response yet).

There is no source to support the notion that the allegation was retracted, and many sources say the opposite, reporting on the allegation sans mention of any retraction. Sources which support the existence of the allegation include: Law and Crime, FORBES, TIME, AP, VICE, NY Mag, The Cut, Chicago Tribune, and Fox8.

The NYT piece was considered invalid for refuting the allegation because it was unclear which claim they said was retracted, and it fails WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS (see RS/N). @Aquillion: explained his understanding that without the NYT "retraction", the entire section containing the allegation should be removed, and he is insisting it remain off the page until we hear from the NYT.

Relevant talk page sections are:

• Claim the Clinton went to island

• RS/N RS/N
• BLP issues:

My question is whether this removal is justified per WP:BLP, and whether waiting for the NYT to respond (which could be never) is justified? petrarchan47คุก 21:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Olavo de Carvalho

[[60]]

The biography of the philosopher Olavo de Carvalho is clearly biased on Wikipedia.org. The english text should be translated from the Brazilian Wikipedia page, where the text is complete and imparcial.