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.

J. K. Rowling

I am coming here regarding issues at J. K. Rowling#Transgender issues, which is a featured article, though input on the section as a whole is also welcome. Note that basically the same material is covered at Politics of J. K. Rowling, although I think that article overall is a WP:POVFORK created to dump WP:NOTNEWS material in and should be deleted.

The coverage of her essay responding to criticism is cited to this source from Reuters (green at WP:RSP), which is a secondary source to her essay itself. The Reuters source reads, Rowling, 54, said she believed most trans people posed zero threat to others, were vulnerable and deserved protection. But she gave examples of where she thought demands by trans activists were dangerous to women. “When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman ... then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.” The quoted portion from the essay without ellipsis reads, When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.

I think this should be summarized as, ...and stated that some of what trans activists were asking for regarding access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women.... However, a couple of editors are determined to have it read, ...and stated that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women.... This is a misrepresentation of her position. It is not just about transgender women, as this implies. She is clearly stating that the issue goes beyond trans women - that certain criteria for access allow persons who are not trans women and do not actually identify as women to gain access for other reasons ("any and all"). We can't attribute to her a position different from the one actually held.

As a secondary issue, overall, a few editors are dead set on removing reference to the fact that Rowling also received support, and piling on opinions that criticized Rowling. For example, she received support from transgender pop singer Dana International. This was mentioned in the Reuters source, and so seems very WP:Due. It's also mentioned in this story. Isn't it a violation of WP:NPOV to claim someone received only criticism when that is simply not the case? Why are cisgender Harry Potter actors' opinions more noteworthy than what an actual trans woman says? We should not patronizingly act as though all trans people have the same opinion. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll say this, between the two options above, the second one is at least grammatically correct. That may be part of the problem. I do think it should be pointed out that the source says the demands were from "trans activists" and not trans women in general. To make it grammatically correct and eliminate the dual meaning it presents, I would probably change it to "...and stated that some of what trans activists were asking for, regarding access to single-sex spaces, were a danger to women..." Here, the subject (some) is plural, so the verb (were) should be plural as well. Then, by separating the parenthetical clause with commas, it helps avoid confusion between which verb is the main verb of the sentence and helps avoid confusion between the preposition "for" and the verb "regarding", which created a snag for the reader. (I had to go back and read it twice to get what it was trying to say.) All in all, though, I think it is important to stick to what the sources say about activists.

The rest I don't know about. In general, I'd say that criticism needs to be balanced. If there are statements praising this, then those should be added as well, provided that they are sourced and notable. But I have never heard the term "cisgender" and have no clue what it means, or what Harry Potter has to do with anything, so you've lost me there. Zaereth (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Cisgender is the term used in certain circles to mean " people whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth.' In answer to the first post, certainly the support she received for her article, which she knew would bring a lot of vitriolic abuse her way, should be referenced if it can be done by using reliable sources. Also I don't agree that saying "she supports keeping trans women out of single sex spaces" is sufficiently clear. What she is talking about, as she made clear, is proposed legal changes that would allow completely male bodied people to state that they identify as women to change their legal status to women and then be eligible to enter women only spaces. This is a very bitter and divisive issue in the UK and a real hornet's nest which I have no intention of being involved with.Smeat75 (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, this is all far out of my realm of expertise, but sounds like jargon to me. Wouldn't it be easier to just say that? (Personally, I prefer the Navajo belief that there are four genders. Likely more. And all bathrooms should be unisex, what the hell.) As for the specific request, I'd simply say go with what the sources say. Keep it as concise as possible while being as precise as possible in summarizing them. We want the gist of it without altering the meaning, and I think the second example does that, so I would go with the first, with a few corrections for clarity and understandability. Zaereth (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I've been keeping out of the Rowling drama on Wikipedia because of the hornet's nest that Smeat75 mentions, and because I have enough such nests to deal with on Wikipedia, and because of misguided accusations (or assumptions) of transphobia against editors (including myself) that result when being involved with topics like this one. I mean, the "people who menstruate" type of wording came up on Wikipedia as well, and there is no disputing the fact that there are people who would call everyone (me included) who voted "oppose" in that RfC WP:Village pump (policy) discussion transphobic. Rowling received so much disgusting, misogynistic abuse for speaking her mind. Transgender activists didn't come together to focus on that. But, hey, they have come together to focus on what they argue is The Sun's misogyny against Rowling.

Anyway, I agree that the "she supports keeping trans women out of single sex spaces" piece isn't wording that should be retained. That's not what she stated, and it's misleading to make it seem like she focused on keeping trans women out. I can't speak for Rowling, but it doesn't seem to me that she would object to a trans woman who passes using the women's bathroom. As for those who are visibly transgender? Again, I can't speak for Rowling. I did read her essay that added fuel to the fire, but we are all going to interpret it in different ways (some more similar than others). I would simply quote her directly. That should stop the back and forth over whatever wording each side thinks is the best summary for it. And, of course, material about Rowling receiving support for her commentary should be there if WP:Due. Sources reporting on a trans woman supporting her viewpoint? Dana International's trans status is relevant, and the woman is notable. If sources are taking the time to mention her, then sources clearly see it as noteworthy to mention. Furthermore, the sources are clear that Rowling and Dana International have sort of a friendship or acquaintance status. Yes, Rowling received more backlash than support, but it doesn't mean that any support material should be excluded. Base the matter on WP:Due. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the secondary issue, Dana International is no more representative of other transgender people as are any single person in any community. Mermaids an established British non profit charity that supports gender variant and transgender youth which received £500,000 from the UK's National Lottery only this year is a 100 times more WP:Due. To equate International personal view to be of the same level as expert organisations like Mermaids and the Trevor Project is WP:FALSEBALANCE. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You have a strange idea of what constitutes weight. I looked at Flyer22's links and examples, and this all seems like a good example of how easy it is for people to become the things they fight against. Cops become criminals, people who battle racism become racists, and activists against intolerance become intolerant. (I won't even mention the Trump haters.) The things people hate in others tend to be those same things they unconsciously dislike about themselves. It's a story as old as time. Wherever there is a battle to be fought... Zaereth (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: "I won't even mention the Trump haters." – Are they turning orange and unable to tell the truth for more than 30 seconds straight?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Rowling's lack of enthusiasm for the language bending in until-recently-strange ways, and making it clear that having lived as a woman in the entire biological sense has shaped who she is and what she does, while also repeatedly making it very clear she's supportive of trans rights and was way ahead of the curve on that – this is not "transphobic". Even some trans activists are saying it is not and that labeling her that way will hurt their own cause. It's just extremist noise and is not encyclopedic material. Every time someone somewhere gets mad at some tweet, we do not need to write about it in the encyclopedia. This is not EmpheralMessagesAndEmotionsPedia. Further comments at the article talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Respectively who are you labelling as extremists that are making 'noise'? and apart from Dana International (who is not a activist) who are the trans activists or non activists who are actually supporting Rowlings to deny other transgender individuals the simple human right to use the wash room that aligns with their gender? It may have started with a tweet, but she then published a lengthy essay in which she erroniously associates the transgendered with preditory male abusers, all this has been picked up by the international press, with even the conservative press supporting those who have been critical of her remarks. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Here [1] is the essay you are referring to. Anybody can read what she says and to claim that she wants "to deny... transgender individuals the simple human right to use the wash room that aligns with their gender" is not correct. She writes about many aspects of trans activism, what she says about washrooms/changing rooms is only a small part of it. She refers to a hitherto totally unfeminist older lady who’s vowed never to visit Marks & Spencer again because they’re allowing any man who says they identify as a woman into the women’s changing rooms and When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. Earlier, she says A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law. Many people aren’t aware of this. Indeed many people are not, I think when people see the term "trans woman" a lot of them think it means "someone who has TRANSitioned medically from male to female or is in the process of doing so" and do not realise that it is now insisted in some circles that biology has nothing to do with gender, it is purely a matter of self identity. So you have the situation that 100% male bodied people who say they identity as women are called "trans women" and then they and their supporters insist "trans women are women" and these totally male bodied people with male sex organs and male hormones must be allowed access to women only spaces (not just wash rooms). It is dishonest of her WP bio to say she writes that "allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women." She doesn't say that at all.Smeat75 (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep. And "she erroniously associates the transgendered with preditory male abusers" is basically a fiction, or an assumption that has taken on the form of a fiction. It is not encyclopedic material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I had to try doing a direct quote since my last attempt at using the accurate summary and pointing to this discussion was reverted. Controversy is likely to continue. We need more balanced editors there to combat WP:ADVOCACY and people not WP:LISTENing. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The bathroom story is an extremely common dog whistle specifically used to argue against allowing trans women into bathrooms. Anyone familiar with transphobic discourse would instantly recognise this for what it is and I think that is why you're getting so much pushback on this. "any man" in this context is any man who identifies as a woman. so in effect: any trans woman. Licks-rocks (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

"any man" in this context is any man who identifies as a woman. so in effect: any trans woman. This is your personal WP:OR. As I said above: She is clearly stating that the issue goes beyond trans women - that certain criteria for access allow persons who are not trans women and do not actually identify as women to gain access for other reasons ("any and all [men who wish to come inside]"). We can't attribute to her a position different from the one actually held. Are you saying you can't imagine any reason for which a man (not a trans woman) might wish to access a single-sex space? Crossroads ^-talk- 20:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding my point. What I am saying is that you, like I said when I reverted your edit, are making a distinction without a difference. It is an argument specifically designed to instil fear about trans people existing in public spaces and we should treat it as such. I think including the quote reduces the quality of the article as a whole, as it is better to express a summary of what is being said, something the previous version does a much better job at. if you insist on altering the status quo, please take care not to leave it without the proper context. Licks-rocks (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

furthermore, expanding on me mentioning "proper context" I think it is disingenuous to suggest this argument, presented in a whole manifesto aimed specifically at trans people, is not about trans people. It is clear from the rest of the manifesto that JKR's point is not merely about bathrooms. Would she have made this argument in isolation, I may have been more inclined to agree with you, but it is not. It is merely one of the more notable arguments in a barrage of transphobic talking points. And I repeat: We should treat it as such. To "take it literally" in the sense that you are suggesting cannot be done without taking the rest of the document into consideration. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

You are just ignoring what she actually says and making stuff up. She isn't talking about "trans" people, people who have TRANSitioned from one sex to another, she is talking about biological MALES who say the magic words "I identify as a woman " and think that gives them the right to enter women only spaces.Smeat75 (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have ignored the second segment of my reply. As for "me making stuff up", no. I simply actually took the time out of my day to read the damn thing. It is quite clear within the context of the rest of the document what the reader is supposed to take away from that segment. Please keep your baseless accusations towards me to a minimum going forward. Thanks in advance, Licks-rocks (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, "she is talking about biological MALES who say the magic words "I identify as a woman "" is an admission that I am correct, and not a rebuttal. It is indeed solely aimed at men who identify as women, which is to say, trans people. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't accept that, she doesn't accept that, we will never accept that. For a man to say "I identify as a woman " does not make him a trans woman or any kind of woman. It is deeply misogynistic. Smeat75 (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who "we" is, and I suggest you leave any notion of "we" at the door, since thinking in terms of factions is not very conductive to building an encyclopedia. As for trans: that is not actually what that word means. The word "trans" is derived from a prefix, being the opposite of cis. It has nothing to do with transitioning, and people are referred to as trans both before and after transitioning. Your point is moot. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

"We" means "she and I". Not hard to grasp. Some or these so-called "trans women" have no intention of ever "transitioning". It is a nonsense and a deep insult to actual women.Smeat75 (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I rest my case. It is clear that you are not intending to listen to reason on this topic. --Licks-rocks (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Bodney (~ BOD ~) asked, "apart from Dana International (who is not a activist) who are the trans activists or non activists who are actually supporting Rowling [...]?" I cut off the rest of Bodney's statement because that's not what Rowling stated. And what Dana International stated (among other things) is the following: "Sometimes the [LGBT] community goes to unnecessary wars with people who are totally with us." Haaretz stated, "International's support is significant because even cast members of the 'Harry Potter' films, which are based on Rowling’s mammoth-selling novels, have said they disagree with her, contending that trans women are unquestionably women. International has often commented on the subject, saying there is a distinction between trans and cisgender women, and no reason to put them under one umbrella." As for others? Many know of the infamous Blaire White's views. Her views as a trans woman are mainly infamous because they significantly depart from what is more often reported on in the media about trans views. And for her views on trans issues, she's been called transphobic or a transmedicalist, including by cisgender people who don't know that she's transgender (who assume she's cisgender by her appearance) when ranting at her and speaking on matters they are ill-informed on. She's also been called a self-hating trans woman. As seen by this YouTube video, White has talked about all of this. And as seen here (and in some recent video where she joined other commentators on someone else's channel, but I can't find at the moment), she supports Rowling (although, going by that recent video I currently can't find, she does take some issue with things Rowling stated in the aforementioned essay). And on the bathroom issues? White has been clear why excluding a trans woman who looks like her -- who appears cisgender -- from the women's bathroom and insisting that she use the men's bathroom does not work; her "I Used The Men's Bathroom (But I'm Trans...)" video says it all.

Other trans women who support Rowling include physics teacher Debbie Hayton (who was so appalled by The Body Shop's take on this matter that she wrote the "How dare the Body Shop tell JK Rowling what to think" piece in The Spectator), Miss London (who's been clear that she doesn't support Maya Forstater, but does consider Rowling a trans ally), Rose of Dawn, and Miranda Yardley, among others (including those in Rowling's Twitter feed). Of course we shouldn't include support commentary from any ole person (trans or not). I'm just pointing out that Rowling's views (not necessarily all of them) have support from some trans women. Transgender people's views are diverse on this topic. That's why a trans man like Jammidodger considers Rowling transphobic, while someone like Rose of Dawn doesn't. It's why ContraPoints received a lot of backlash, especially from non-binary people, for commenting "I guess [pronoun introductions are] good for people who use they/them only and want only gender neutral language. But it comes at the minor expense of semi-passable transes like me, and that's super fucking hard for us.", and later for including trans man Buck Angel in one of her videos because some view him as a transmedicalist. Like Rose of Dawn states, there is no unified trans voice; there's just one side that speaks louder than the others and gets more media attention.

I've stated before that I listen to both sides (I regularly watch Jammidodger's videos, for example). And contrary to what some would have us believe, listening to both sides is not at all like hearing out gay/lesbian people and conversion therapists or black people and racists (or specifically Nazis). "What is a woman?" is not a "good vs. very bad/evil people" debate (no matter that certain people frame it that way), and it has been debated for many years, including by Simone de Beauvoir, who argued, "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman." That debate continues in today's climate; it's just amplified via social media platforms (especially the toxic Twitter). There are many gay and lesbian people who don't agree with some transgender views. And while what is racist is usually clear (though the recent climate shows that some white people are very ignorant to what racism is), what is transphobia is very much debated, including by those within the transgender community (although there is general agreement on some things that are certainly transphobic). As noted by Buck Angel and this recent The Guardian source, there is also a generational divide. And that generational divide includes significantly older transgender people (like Buck Angel) who have views on trans issues that are different than those of younger trans people. Many wish that these discussions were a lot more civil, but there is a long way to go on that front. Above, I spoke on the abuse Rowling has received for speaking her mind, but Daniel Radcliffe has also received backlash, including a lot of vitriol (somewhat via the Twitter hashtag #AskDanielRadcliffe), for speaking his mind. I can't help but shake my head at how civil discourse often goes right out the window on this topic, and bullying tactics are enabled, and at how people who mean well and want to discuss their concerns are so afraid to speak their minds for fear of being labeled whatever. My youngest sister, who agrees with the backlash against Rowling (but not the misogyny directed at her), doesn't have to fear speaking her mind on this subject. But those who disagree with her? Sighs.

Anyway, my sort of essay (above) aside... For the topic at hand, we should not be putting words in Rowling's mouth, even if a reliable (perhaps biased) source is misrepresenting or misquoting her. It's that simple. Don't tell me we'll need an RfC on this. Sighs again. Something good to come out of all of this for me is learning who Dana International is; her "Woman In Love" song is fire. Stuck in my head. And let's be real here: If she were Beyoncé, Ellen DeGeneres, or Oprah, trying to keep her commentary on any of this out of the Rowling article would be a losing battle. Absolutely futile. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22:"And on the bathroom issues? White has been clear why excluding a trans woman who looks like her -- who appears cisgender -- from the women's bathroom and insisting that she use the men's bathroom does not work". Well, maybe for her. But this reminds me that earlier this year, a quite ‘’passable’’ transwoman (that is, a trans who looks like a ciswoman, just like Blair White) was violently dragged out from a shopping-mall for using the women’s bathroom. (Pictures of her in a News article). Turns out that someone was able to notice that she was trans and called security. This happened near where I live, in Brazil. The point is, this notion that passable trans have nothing to fear is simply not real. She was a victim of this idea that circulates in society (and that is subtly reinforced by insensitive discourses, like Rowling’s or White’s) that transwomen who don’t look like ciswomen are probably just predators. Well, if passable trans are being victims of discrimination and violence, imagine what happens to those who are, unfortunately, unable to look like a cis no matter how hard they try. Anyway, this was just a thought. Daveout (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Daveout. Looking at this, I'm not sure if you tried to ping me since you used my old, simple username, but the ping won't work when pinging the old username. Also, there is no need to ping me since I am keeping up with this section. I pinged you just in case you miss my reply and don't mind being pinged to a page you are watching (if you are watching this one). I appreciate you pointing out the instance you pointed to. Some would argue that if a transgender woman is truly passable, she would not have been recognized as trans. That stated, what is passable can vary according to people's views, and "passable" is sometimes based on stereotypical notions of what a woman looks like or elitist beliefs about female bone structure (such as a cisgender woman always having a certain type of forehead or jawline). For example, I'm aware that some cisgender butch lesbians have been misgendered and/or turned away when trying to use the women's bathroom. As for White and Rowling, I've never heard or seen them state or imply "that trans women who don't look like ciswomen are probably just predators." I was clear that I read Rowling's essay. I didn't get that she was stating that in her essay either. In the aforementioned video, White was clear that she continued to use the men's bathroom when she wasn't passable because she didn't want to make anyone uncomfortable. She's also been clear that a non-passable trans woman's safety should play a role in deciding not to use the women's bathroom. In the aforementioned video, she stresses common sense. Of course, some don't agree with what she argues is common sense on the bathroom matter. Anyway, I pointed to the bathroom video not to make a personal argument on the bathroom debate, but to show that White doesn't agree with the black and white argument that "if you're a trans woman, you should simply stay out of the women's bathroom." On a side note: Trans women and LGBT groups in general typically prefer that "trans women" is not presented as "transwomen." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I have to add that "dog-whistling" is an activity and an intent. Nothing (such as concerns about men who just apply for an receive gender confirmation certificates just for the hell of it and are not in any form of transition) "is" innately a dog-whistle. It's entirely reasonable for a cis-woman in a country that issues legally binding gender confirmation certificates, without any actual criteria, to have concerns about this. It's not transphobic, and trying to spin it as such is activism and (on Wikipedia) OR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: J. K. Rowling

In J. K. Rowling#Transgender issues and Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender issues:

1. When discussing Rowling's response to criticism of her views on transgender issues, cited to this source from Reuters, should her views be relayed as A She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman ... then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside", while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection. or B She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women, while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection.?

2. Should the section state, Transgender pop singer Dana International spoke in support of Rowling., sourced to Reuters and Haaretz? Crossroads ^-talk- 21:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Updated links to the articles to go directly to the sections in question. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• 1: Option A. Option B misrepresents Rowling's views and is therefore unacceptable. The issue is not just about transgender women, as this implies. She is clearly stating that the issue goes beyond trans women - that certain criteria for access allow men who are not trans women and do not truly identify as women to gain access for other reasons ("any and all men"). We can't attribute to her a position different from the one actually held. A direct quote eliminates the issue of interpretation by editors.
  2: Yes. It is a violation of WP:NPOV constituting improper WP:WEIGHT to present matters as though Rowling received universal condemnation, which is how it is being done without this material. Reuters and Haaretz are both listed in green at WP:RSP. There is no sensible criterion to include the opinions of actors from the Harry Potter movies - who have no expertise in this area - and not that of a transgender woman whose response has been treated as noteworthy by reliable sources. As for the fact that some transgender people disagree with Dana International, we have the advocacy groups presenting that viewpoint; but we should not misleadingly present it like all trans people feel the same way on these matters.
  As on all controversial topics, we have a duty to follow WP:NOTADVOCACY and not allow articles to become mere one-sided repositories of opinions especially liked by small cliques of editors. This is a recurring problem with any material related to transgender issues. Indeed, there is a good chance that there are other examples of undue weight in these two articles. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Since the topic has come up below, I believe the matter of what she has said on transgender issues should be covered, but I do support limiting the overall length of these sections to two reasonably sized-paragraphs. Hopefully the closer takes this aspect into account as well. We don't need to detail the Forstater incident, or quote Radcliffe at length when he opines about "professional health care associations" without a WP:MEDRS source, or reference GLAAD's response twice, for example. Some editors have been arguing to pile on even more ephemeral social media drama about this at the Politics of J. K. Rowling article, which is supposedly for this, even though WP:NOTNEWS applies everywhere and that WP:POVFORK should be merged or deleted. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1: Option A. The B version is a patent misrepresentation of the source statement; it's WP:OR and WP:POV. Update: I agree with Ineffablebookkeeper, below, that rewording a bit would be a good idea.
  2: Yes. WP depicting some kind of general/universal trans-people condemnation of Rowling is more OR and PoV nonsense.
  Better yet: don't cover this at all. The fact that some activists decided to misconstrue a tweet and a longer piece, in ways that are obviously counter to the statements' actual meaning, is not encyclopedic subject material. This is not SomePeopleGotMadForAWhileOnSocialMedia-pedia. It is not WP's job (see WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#SOCIAL, WP:NOT#INDEX) to serve as a catalogue of every ephemeral bit of online micro-drama surrounding celebrities. That's what People magazine is for.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC); updated: 05:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1: B should not be included, but A should be reworded. I echo the concerns of other editors regarding B - it's not encyclopedic language. However, I'm not keen on the wording of A, personally - I think it still leaves room for controversy amongst editors, thus leading to things like edit warring. I'd put it as something like She said that she was a survivor of both domestic abuse and sexual assault. In the same interview, she also stated her belief that "[opening] the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman" would "open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside", [despite (which I would personally prefer)/as well as (which I feel leans a little too heavily on what - off-wikipedia - I would label as terf rhetoric)] stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection.
  2: Not unless it's going to be part of a wider section detailing media responses to Rowling's statements. If the interests of one Israeli pop singer alone are all that's included, no matter the fact that it's cited, and despite my admitted personal biases, I still think it gives a slant. However, I haven't read the rest of the article - it might include these things anyway. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1: Option A. Use her own words. B isn't what she said at all and is a complete misrepresentation.
  2: Yes. Of course support she received from people relevant to the issue should be included if this matter is going to be in her WP bio. However, I agree with User:SMcCandlish above, the best thing would be not to include this at all. She is a noted fiction writer, that doesn't make her opinions about controversial current affairs notable, despite the outrage of activist groups who cannot brook a word of opposition to their beliefs.Smeat75 (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - huh. An RFC. Not really flagged on the articles it's about. And where one of the options presented by the person who drafted the RFC is shot down by that person. How odd. Almost as if a certain conclusion was desired and being orchestrated... Crossroads mentions Reuters a lot, as if it's the only source available and the holy grail of reliable sources - to the extent I've commented on it on the article talk page. That aside, what have we here? A series of tweets, described by many prominent people as transphobic because they hit all the usual dog-whistles. Rowling defining women as "people who menstruate", and pissing off a hell of a lot of women who are post-menopausal, have had hysterectomies, do not menstruate for hormonal reasons, and leaving aside the fact that many trans men menstruate. An essay from Rowling, in response. An essay that talks about her ex-husband assaulting her (what this has to do with trans issues, I'm not sure, but it does seem to be a straw man of some kind), and that giving men access to women's bathrooms will be a danger to women. I'm not aware of any men seeking access to women's bathrooms. I am aware that the number of women attacked in women's bathrooms by trans women is vanishingly small. Searching for instances leads to articles on attacks on trans women, not perpetrated by them. Trans women are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it. So understandably, her comments and essay caused a large backlash, and understandably that has been covered by many mainstream media outlets (not just Reuters!). And naturally, they have sought the comments of those celebrities most associated with her, so we have all of the HP actors, and in addition, organisations such as GLAAD, Mermaids, and The Trevor Project. We're striving for NPOV and balance, but the responses of those organisations, as reported by RS, were all removed from the biography and politics and articles at various stages (they're restored now). So yes, this controversy should be covered; no, it should not be tied to what Reuters says; no, there is no need to fix in stone a form of words here via an ill-publicised RFC; especially so when we're being led to just one of the options presented; sure, include prominent voices who supported Rowling, if they're due (I'm not aware of any connection between Dana International and Rowling) and if coverage merits it (one line in a story by one international news agency and some local Israeli press doesn't really cut it). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  You're free to post neutral notices at whatever talk pages you like. However, the point of RfCs is to gather input from the broader editorial community, not just the same handful of people who've already been arguing something to death without coming to a compromise. And WP:FRS exists for a reason. Non-WP:SNOW RfCs run for a long time, and plenty of people will see it, especially as it's at a major noticeboard.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry, am I wrong in thinking that it is absolutely normal practice to advertise the existence of an RfC about an article - as an absolute minimum - on that article's talk page? To be frank, I have a problem with advertising an RFC non-neutrally when the RFC itself is framed as this one is - "here's a plausible phrasing we could use; here's an alternative phrasing that's not going to fly; choose between them." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  The advantage of posting it here without mentioning it on any of the talk pages is that you get to set up your side of the story in peace without any of those pesky other editors getting to have a say in it, of course. ^^° --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Bastun is implying a requirement or responsibility to notify individual articles' talk pages. There is not one. Repeat: "You're free to post neutral notices at whatever talk pages you like." RfCs often cover very large categories of material, and we do not spam a zillion talk pages. The entire point of RfCs is to get new, uninvolved editorial input, so notifying article talk pages, even on a narrow matter like this one, often proves counter-productive anyway. If an issue is trivial but stalemated, and not of interest beyond that article (e.g., whether a particular photo is better to use than some other one), it is best to have the RfC at the article talk page. When it involves serious policy-compliance questions, it is often better at a noticeboard, and without pre-stacking the input with people already deeply embedded in the impasse and the circular, unproductive arguments about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Bastun, it was Rowling who was pissed off about women being described as "people who menstruate" - Rowling took issue with the phrasing, tweeting: “‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”Pincrete (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, SMcCandlish, and that Bastun is trying to act like it's a scandal that I voted in my own RfC, like almost everyone does, is ridiculous. As for the claim that Option B is an "alternative phrasing that's not going to fly", or as stated below is worded "flippantly", funny how that's only come up after it started getting trounced here, because at the article itself, these editors never complained and others were more than happy to revert to it: [2][3] But since you mention "neutral notices", would you say Bastun's notice is neutral? [4][5][6] It includes the comment Some editors have expressed concern that the RfC has not been put together or presented neutrally. But these claims are only coming from one side; I'll leave their merit to others to judge. What to do? Crossroads ^-talk- 15:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Bullshit! Of course you'd vote in your own RfC, you'd be mad not to. That's not the point I made. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  RFCs aren't supposed to be votes, so ain't supposed to be nobody "voting" in them at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• 1. Option A and 2. Yes, if included, per SMcCandlish (talk · contribs). I agree with him that preferably, it should not be included at all; at the very least, wait a month or two and then re-evaluate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper; it's not within our purview to cover every Twitter-provoked tempest in a teapot. That said, if this material is to be included, we ought to say she said what she actually said, not leave out a part of it that significantly changes the implied meaning. I'm neutral as to Ineffablebookkeeper (talk · contribs)'s suggestion regarding the wording of option A. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 01:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• 1. Option E' (below) after that Option 1B as it is closer to the context of the passage and her essay as reported by several reliable sources.' Option 1.B and 2 No * Until a better option is offered, I temp' Option 1A is based on the Reuter article quote that misses out the middle bit of the quote, changing the emphasis, other reliable sources don't do this. though they are BOTH misrepresentations of what she actually said. .....This RfC has not been put together neutrally, with option 1 B being worded a bit flippantly. Her actual words are ...In refering to the safety of "natal girls and women" ... "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. The clear implication here is that she is referring to primarily about a non-natal females (e,g. transsexuals) who have obtained a gender certificate not men in general. Context is everything Rowlings did not make this comment in isolation, but in a long and purposefully worded essay about transsexuals that contained several other (erroneous) statements about transexuals, it should not be read in isolation without taking the rest of her essay into consideration." ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 08:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Noo The is no reason to prescribe the addition of the celebrity Dana International to the coverage of this topic, she would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. Set up to achieve one outcome. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Hmm, but the wording is option B is taken directly from the discussion above this. Various editors' objections to it as OR is why this RfC was opened in the first place. Nothing precludes you from inserting an option C that you think is a better alternative. If it actually the best of the three, people are apt to support it, even if they previously selected one of the extant two options being asked about.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@ User:SMcCandlish I have taken your advice and inseted option 1E below after a couple of too visible messy rewrites, its not perfect but I it is believe a better option than 1A & 1B. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• çomment Option B - * I made a similar point to bodney and bastun here. A sizeable number of editors are trying to push for a status quo where every sentence relating to or about this manifesto in relation to transphobia either needs to be inserted as a quote verbatim from the manifesto itself or should not be included at all. which is to put it mildly not a good way to go about summarizing an entire manifesto and the stuff people say about it. And to pretend any of it is not about trans people is extremely disingenuous when J.K.R herself titled her tweet introducing it "terf wars" and when the entire document is one long string of notorious transphobic dog whistles. (ranging from claiming Maya Forstater lost her job over some tweets rather than creating a hostile work environment to the infamous trans people in bathrooms argument.) it is disingenuous to try and single out individual quotes, as happened once again here. It is even more disingenuous to not advertise the fact that you've set up an RFC on either of the two relevant talk pages while accusing others of trying to create a WP:POVFORK for trying to start a civil discussion about how much information about that same issue should be present in either of the two pages covering the same subject. on the talk page, where every relevant editor can, and should, and should be able to, see it. Not exactly a show of good sportmanship here, crossroads.

As for dana international: no, she should not be included. We are currently mentioning only two extremely large and relevant Trans charities on the main page and only one on the politics one. I think including one individual transgender person would quite clearly be creating a false balance.--Licks-rocks (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed Dana International's personal opinion is a WP:FALSEBALANCE when compared to non profit organisations representing 1,000s of transexuals. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly Rowling, the famous author and essayist, underlines with deliberate purpose about who the target of her words is, when she choose to use the accronym TERF. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

minor clarification: it is not so much about the target as the topic. She says elsewhere in the document itself that she doesn't consider herself a terf and that she doesn't like that word et cetera, but that she refers to the article in those terms does give us a good indication of what it is about.--Licks-rocks (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The statement We are currently mentioning only two extremely large and relevant Trans charities on the main page and only one on the politics one is false. As of when that comment was made, at the main page [7] three charities are mentioned (GLAAD, Trevor Project, Mermaids), and at the politics page [8], two are mentioned (GLAAD, Mermaids), with GLAAD mentioned two separate times. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I was only looking at the most recent controversy. That being said my point still stands even when you want to include her in the text above that. Only the biggest and most relevant names are mentioned. Dana simply does not fit that bill by any stretch of the imagination. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• 1. Option A Option B is a misrepresentation of what she actually said.
  2. Yes It should be noted that she recived condemnation from organizations, but also support from some individual transpersons. EileenAlphabet (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option C While I think this is a topic best avoided like the plague, I am convinced by SMcCandlish. The whole thing should be removed from the article until this thing settles down and we see where all the pieces land. Already, I think we're giving it way too much weight. We're not a newspaper, so we can afford to wait and see how it all plays out, and get it right. But we shouldn't be joining and fueling this thing. We don't need to keep up-to-the-minute reporting, which is why I find the alternative proposal below to be not even worth commenting on. If not, then I go with option A, because B is a mischaracterization, which appears to be people reading into it something that is not actually there. Zaereth (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• 1A is clearly preferable to 1B, for the same reasons that everyone else mentions: A is an accurate summary of her views, whereas B is a misrepresentation. Also, per Crossroads, this is a topic that certainly deserves to be covered in her biography, but not at great length; I agree that two paragraphs is probably sufficient. --JBL (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

But 1A is simply not an accurate summary of her views, it covers just one of the many questionasble comments Rowlings made in her essay, so it is automatically not an accurate summary. Context is everything Rowlings did not make this comment in isolation, but in a long and purposefully worded essay about transsexuals that contained several other (I would argue erronious) statements about transexuals, it should not be read or treated in isolation without taking the rest of her essay into consideration.

Plus the wording chosen has been partially selected. What she actual said In refering to the safety of "natal girls and women" ... "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. The clear implication here is that she is refering to primarily about a non-natal females (e,g. transsexuals) who have obtained a gender certificate not men in general. Her own personal story of being a victim of abuse is seperate, it is in a seperate later paragraph, it was not in a pubic bathroom nor was a transperson involved. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Option 1.B should not be used because it is simply not supported by sources "she [..] stated that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women" cannot be supported by what she wrote in the essay. To put all this into context as you say, the current social and political debates focus on the (controversial) issue of whether tranmswomen should enter into spaces designated only for women. Views on this vary from one 'extreme' to another. As such, you have on one hand people who hold the view that no transwomen, not even post-op transexuals who have gone though many surgeries and hormonal treatments, should be allowed in, and on the other hand you have people who argue that any man from the street, even if he didn't do anything medically, legally or even socially (ie. he presents himself in ways non-distinguishable form 'ordinary' men) should be allowed in merely by saying he identifies as a woman. I would argue that most people fall somewhere in between these views, leaning more or less towards one end or the other. We have no clue where Rowling stands on this, but to keep Option 1.B would imply that she stands exactly at the one pole which wants any tramswoman out of women's spaces, no exceptions allowed ever. There's no evidence Rowling holds this view, and we should take WP:BLP and WP:OR very seriously. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:55EC (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

FIRSTLY: you need to read the quote in context, it was in an essay full of the dangers of concerns relating to transsexuals, yes she did say she knew some transsexuals, but whole essay was mostly about transsexuals. SECONDLY: In refering to the safety of "natal girls and women i.e. Non Trans Women ... "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones i.e. TRANSWOMEN with Gender certificates –then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.

are people in this RfC unable to read. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 01:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Modified ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 01:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

You ask "are people in this RfC unable to read?" Well, people are able to read, and they've probably read WP:OR too. Rowling wrote an essay, and obviously it can be interpreted in various ways, but the editors' own interpretation of it cannot be stated as "what Rowling said." Even if she was referring only to "transwomen with Gender certificates" as you say, there's no evidence that she was referring to all transwomen with Gender certificates: maybe she wants some transwomen with Gender certificates to enter (ie. those who had undergone a certain degree of medical treatments) and other transwomen with Gender certificates (ie. those who have either not undergone any medical treatment or are not 'sufficiently' transitioned) not to enter. We can't just pretend to read her mind. Option 1.B implies she doesn't want any transwoman ever to enter, and the claim that she holds this view is not supported by sources. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:55EC (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

You are adding distinctions and qualifiers she did not make. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 02:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Look, I think we're going around in circles. I and others have explained that Rowling did not state what is claimed in Option 1.B. If you want to interpret her essay like that, that's your prerogative, but this does not mean your subjective interpretation of her essay can be presented as fact, as being Rowling's view. And I wasn't "adding distinctions and qualifiers she did not make", I said "maybe she wants [...]", ie. I offered a possible subjective interpretation of what she wrote, I didn't say that this is what she meant. But our subjective interpretations do not belong in the article as they cannot be equated with Rowling's views. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:55EC (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the IP 100% here: there are valid critiques of Rowlings' position (e.g.), and those deserve to be presented (keeping in mind due weight etc.), but misrepresenting her position in order to cast it in a worse light should not be on the table. --JBL (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Also you claim: "[...] it was in an essay full of the dangers of transsexuals". The essay was not "full of the dangers of transsexuals"; quite on the contrary she explicitly writes: "I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection". Please note that WP:BLP applies to talk pages, too. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:55EC (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I accept your advise and changed dangers to concerns relating to transexuals, which can be negative or positive, but they are about transexuals. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 02:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• 1: Option A. and 2: Yes. Option B is a distortion of what she said. It seems to me that the arguments for option B seem to be, essentially, that such a distortion is necessary in order to convey the "correct" message, and prevent readers from reaching a different conclusion than what editors feel she meant. I feel that is inappropriate editorializing. There is no unified view on what she said, that we can point to as the definitive opinion of mainstream RS, so we should pick the version that is the most accurate, which is option A. As to part 2, I think Dana International's opinion has gotten plenty of press to be considered WP:DUE. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• 2: No. Dana doesn't have enough notability in this context. It feels extremely odd to have the name of some random and little known Israeli singer among those of Harry Potter stars. Reuters mentioned her just as an illustrative example that JK also received (very little, but still) support from some LGBT ppl. and that is exactly what the article should state (without mentioning names for now, until we have someone with more notability and contextual relevance). Daveout (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1: Option A Agree with other above that option B is a distortion. 2: Yes I would also agree with SMCandlish that this would be better left out altogether, however, if critical voices are to be included, then supportive ones should be too, in the interests of balance. AutumnKing (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1: Option A. This shouldn't even have to be asked. Option B obviously misrepresents what she stated.

2: I don't feel strongly about this inclusion, but I don't see an issue with including Dana International. I stated before that the sources are clear that Rowling and Dana International have sort of a friendship or acquaintance status. So she is not just some random person to Rowling. And I've already stated that we should include support material if due. I also think it's a valid point to not make it seem as though Rowling was universally condemned or as though all transgender people disagree with her and/or consider her transophbic. I doubt that most do, and I state that as someone who is very familiar with the discourse on the topic and which trans voices get amplified and/or more support in the media.

Length: I do think this topic should be covered in the article, given the amount of press it got. But we have the Politics of J. K. Rowling article for the in-depth material. No need to repeat the same exact thing, with the same length, in both articles. Should employ WP:Summary style. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. With upmost respect for all editors so far involved, espicially the RfC starter, I request we restart this RfC and insert Option 1E below into this RfC. 1E because the have been several other proposals suggested. I do this because I seriously believe that both 1A and 1B are flawed and the new option is correct. I do apologise for my delay in proposing this, I have never made a RfC or a proposal that effects a RfC before, and do not know the process. I plan to find out how to do this tomorrow/sunday as I am not well atm. I am tired so if the is any reactions/advice good or negative I might respond tomorrow. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I've often seen new proposals done in a separate section, as you did below. RfCs are not started over, but you can ping participants to see if anyone switches to your proposal. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No need to restart the RfC. I also don't see how it's flawed. If an amendment to the RfC is agreed on, or just adding a note immediately underneath it is agreed on, with respect to your proposal, that can be done. But no need to restart. I'm sure editors who have voted don't want to repeat themselves. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding 2, Dana should not be included; her opinion is not due AFAICT, and there seems to be agreement on keeping the section relatively brief, so excluding her minority view seems preferable to having her plus other trans people whose comments have gotten similar levels of media coverage, "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". As for 1, neither option is ideal, although as long as this thread is not closed as mandating an exact wording, I suppose the issues can prbably be worked out. -sche (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• For this specific RfC ... 1: Option A and 2: Abstain. ¶ I will wait for another, official, separate RfC before weighing in. Otherwise, I get confused. :0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1: Option A , B is a transparent synth of what editors imagine she is really saying when it claims JKR said "that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women". B might be acceptable if it were clear that this is how SOME commentators reacted - but putting the text in WP:VOICE and JKR voice fundamentally misrepresents both JKR and sources. 2: Omit, but also omit all the actors, celebrities who sided one way or the other - why should they be any more relevant than a random selection of H Potter readers? If a brief way of summarising the main points made pro and con can be found, so be it, otherwise, omit all. Pincrete (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1. Option B: directly before the quote given above, Reuters characterizes it as But she gave examples of where she thought demands by trans activists were dangerous to women. So saying that she stated that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women is not WP:SYNTH at all. It's nearly a direct quote from the article. (I'd accept hewing even closer to the phrasing of the article if we want: something like stated that she thought some demands of trans activists were dangerous to women.) 2: Omit: an Israeli pop star isn't notable in this case for any reason other than that she's a trans woman who defended Rowling. But that strikes me as WP:FALSEBALANCE to insist on including one defender when nearly all other trans people and trans organizations were pretty soundly against her. Loki (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

That is the source's characterization. If one is to go by it, it should be given WP:In-text attribution. Enough reliable sources simply cited Rowling's own words without trying to put words into her mouth.

And "when nearly all other trans people [...] were pretty soundly against her."? Not true, by simply looking at Rowling's Twitter feed. That's why the aforementioned Blaire White noted the many trans people agreeing with Rowling on Twitter. And AfterEllen states, "But J.K. Rowling's words also found widespread support." Of course, the trans (and non-trans) people who agree with Rowling in part or in whole have generally been ignored by media sources. And I think I have a good idea of how you feel about White and AfterEllen (for example; AfterEllen being considered anti-trans, a view supported by some LGBT sites who argue that it is); so no need to argue my points by giving your personal feelings on White or where you think AfterEllen falls in the context of reliable sources on transgender issues. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Is the *blog ~ AfterEllen a reliable source? are twitter or YouTube reliable sources? let us in Wikipedia try stick to the real unambiguous reliable sources in our discussion, as the articles can only use Wikipedia:Reliable sources, but you know this as you are undoubtedly a very highly experienced editor. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, AfterEllen counts as a WP:Reliable source, and we use it in a number of Wikipedia articles. This includes articles it was used in long before certain LGBT sites got together and deemed it transphobic. It is not simply some blog. And on the topic of blogs, WP:NEWSBLOG is clear. And unlike PinkNews, AfterEllen is not listed at WP:RSPSOURCES as a generally unreliable source. That stated, we also apply WP:CONTEXTMATTERS when we use sources. In this context, AfterEllen isn't the best source to use to state "Rowling's words also found widespread support.", given the controversy surrounding AfterEllen on trans issues. It, however, is not a source that is blacklisted, including from being used for its own personal commentary on trans issues. And regardless, it is not like I suggested using it, YouTube, or Twitter as a source in the article. My main point in this "what people are saying" case, as you very well know, is that it's absolutely not true that only a few trans people agree with Rowling. Like I noted above, there are trans figures, including Buck Angel, who agree with her (at least in part). Someone like Miss London disagrees with her on some things and agrees with her on other things. And yet others, as we know because of their media coverage, disagree with her completely. I replied on this specific aspect to give a more well-rounded picture. We are allowed to point to what Twitter and other outlets are stating without arguing to use such outlets as sources in the article. This section also includes significant debate that is not solely related to improving the article in question. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The reliability of AfterEllen is currently being discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If we're going to simply quote Rowling directly, we might as well use her manifesto as a primary source, no? The reason Wikipedia prefers secondary sources is to get the exact sort of "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" that Reuters provides here. Loki (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, we have secondary sources quoting Rowling's own words. A secondary source misquoting Rowling or putting words into her mouth is no excuse for us to do so. That is why most editors thus far have voted against the current wording. And like I indicated, we are in the habit of giving secondary sources in-text attribution. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, "But she gave examples of where she thought demands by trans activists were dangerous to women." really isn't the same as "She stated that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women." At least the "But she" wording is vague/broad enough to cover the matter without misrepresenting her points. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Option 1A which most editors have voted for is based on the Reuters article quote that misses out the middle part of Rowling's words, changing the emphasis. Other reliable news sources like the Independent, Guardian and NBC*, when quoting her own words do not exclude the direct transsexual reference in the center of the passage. Option 1B is thus a closer report of her own words in the passage in her essay as as recorded fully by the majority of the reliable sources.

"When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside."

The clear implication here is that she is referring to primarily about transsexuals who have obtained a gender certificate not men in general. If you miss out half words from a quoted passage you are of course going to change what comes across to the reader. Context is everything Rowlings did not make this comment in isolation, but in a long and purposefully worded essay about transsexuals that contained several other (erroneous) statements about transexuals, making clear that she considers transmen as women and transwomen as men. If you let transsexual women in (who are really men according to Rowlings) then you might as well allowing all men in, that is the danger according to Rowlings.

• [J K Rowling, predatory men and the nuance we're all missing out https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jk-rowling-trans-people-tweets-letter-reaction-bathrooms-a9561871]
• [J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto' https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351]
• [JK Rowling reveals she is survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/10/jk-rowling-says-survivor-of-domestic-abuse-sexual-assault]

~ BOD ~ ^TALK 09:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The Reuters article in question here says this: [9]

"Rowling, 54, said she believed most trans people posed zero threat to others, were vulnerable and deserved protection. But she gave examples of where she thought demands by trans activists were dangerous to women.

“When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman ... then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.”

The Reuters article should not be used to support option 1.B, that would be a misleading WP:OR interpretation. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:55E7 (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

BUT this R f C is not about Reuters but about JK Rowling and what she said in her essay as reported in all the reliable sources (Reuters is simply just one incomplete report of Rowling's words). So we can and should use all the relevant Reliable Sources Not Just Reuters. And other equally Reliable sources do clearly support 1B, which is definitely not WP:OR, but a closer reporting of the majority of the reliable secondary sources and her own words. Personally I prefer 1E which is even closer, and does not reduce Rowling's whole Essay to just toilets. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I made reference specifically to that Reuters article because it was brought up into this debate. And with regard to what you say that "And other equally Reliable sources do clearly support 1B, which is definitely not WP:OR, but a proper and closer reporting of the majority of the reliable sources" I find no evidence that option 1B is "a proper and closer reporting of the majority of the reliable sources". I'm sure that there are sources which reported it that way - there has been so much written about this in the media in so many sources that you'll find a huge variety of interpretations of what she wrote, but we must use our discretion on how we select sources and most importantly if we give interpretations of what Rowling wrote in her essay we must attribute the interpretation to the source, not say it in Wikipedia voice. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:55E7 (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

We are in reality discussing what is actually going to go in the BLP article on JK Rowling. What has confused things is not 1B, but the use of Reuters to support 1B, when other top level, equally highly reliable selected sources like the Independent, Guardian, NBC, Telegraph (and her own word) do support 1B. The is no point arguing on a pin head about a citation when it only gives half the facts. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

User: ~ BOD ~ , you should not be changing what you wrote after people have already answered (unless you make it clear you made the change, or unless it's just a typo). As for the sources that are supposed to support option 1B that you quoted, they do not actually support it.

• The Guardian article says this [10]

She accused her critics of “groupthink” and “relentless attacks”, saying that while she believed trans people needed and deserved protection due to the high rates of domestic and sexual violence they endure, she did not agree that trans women who have not undergone hormone therapy or surgical transition should have access to single-sex spaces.

Option 1B implies that Rowling does not want any transwoman inside, while the Guardian says "she did not agree that trans women who have not undergone hormone therapy or surgical transition should have access to single-sex spaces.".

• NBC says this: [11]

Later in the piece, where Rowling reveals that she is a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, she uses this traumatic history to discuss her fifth reason why she's "deeply concerned about the consequences of the current trans activism."

"So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth," she wrote.''

As you can see, NBC simply gives a direct quote from the essay.[12]

• The Independent article is discussing mostly bathrooms as they relate to JK Rowling's essay and to trans debates, but even that article does not support option 1B. The whole article should be read, but here is the most relevant part:[13]

"In her letter, Rowling mentions her “concerns” around “single-sex spaces”, which rapidly translates to “bathrooms”. She links those concerns to her own experiences as a survivor of violence and sexual assault, which I’m certainly not here to dispute. Rowling then insists that she “wants trans women to be safe”, then quickly adds: “At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe.”

And here comes the heart of her argument: “When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.”

Rowling’s phrasing matters, especially considering that her line of work suggests she knows a fair amount about word choice. In my opinion, it's hard to interpret the words “any man who believes or feels he’s a woman” as anything other than a pointed reference to transgender women who – going by the rest of Rowling’s sentence – hasn't been taking hormones and/or hasn't had gender confirmation surgeries.

Neither of these articles support option 1B. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:55E7 (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Quick reply when I did my relatively minor tweak at 12:16 I was unaware of your reply at 12:15 and I apologies, but I was in my editor with no idea of your edit at the time. The edit made was not a big change. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

There was also another edit that you did at 00:05 (with the edit summary "tried to tidy up my response but think I made it more unreadable") that was done to an older post from several days ago. When people respond to a post they respond to the exact wording of it, and making changes, even if such changes may not be major, still interferes with the flow of the conversation for those who read it subsequently. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:55E7 (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I can not respond to the selected passages you choose atm as I am busy RL for most of the rest of the day. But I am happy you posted your reply, because these sources all quote the washroom bit of Rowlings passage fully and do support 1B. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The IP is correct that 1B is a problem because the issue for Rowling isn't trans women in general, but rather that anyone can get a gender certificate with no medical transition whatsoever. And her statement even with the middle portion is clear that her concern is men very easily getting a certificate via dishonesty even though they do not actually identify as anything other than men. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• 1. Option A. But I would also add a little more to it per Reuters source: She said she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and that the trauma of those experiences informed some of her feelings about women’s rights, and stated that “When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman ... then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside;” while stating that "most trans people posed zero threat to others, were vulnerable and deserved protection."
  2. Yes. (Discussions regarding trans-related topics become snake pits, so my RfC reply is all I have to say.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

On 10 June 2020, J.K. Rowling published an essay, "J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues". It, and the reactions to it, have been and are being widely reported on in the media. As such, it is appropriate for Wikipedia to cover the essay, the background to it, and the resulting reactions. As the essay is over 3,600 words in length, selecting particular phrases or mandating here and now what sentences we quote from the essay, what we report about her views and what others say about them, when this is a live and ongoing issue, is needlessly restrictive, will result in needless disruption, and would appear to be a breach of several Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Our "About" page states: "Wikipedia is written by open and transparent consensus—an approach that has its pros and cons. Censorship or imposing "official" points of view is extremely difficult to achieve and usually fails after a time." Why should the articles in question not follow this guideline, and the principles of reporting neutrally what the various reliable sources say by discussion and consensus? Therefore, this proposal mandates that there will be no mandated or sanctioned wording on this issue for the time being. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. This is a developing story and mandating what we can and can't say or quote, now, is entirely premature. I especially take issue with cherry-picking one or two of many issues discussed in the 3,600-word essay, particularly Rowling's revelation about being a victim of domestic abuse and sexual assault. These are important issues, absolutely, but completely separate to the issue of transgender rights. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support this seems far more open and neutral starting point on a still unfolding issue in all the relevant various reliable sources. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close as a transparent and disruptive attempt to thwart the ongoing RfC whose very purpose is to reach an open and transparent consensus and to report neutrally what the various reliable sources say by discussion and consensus, and to avoid Censorship or imposing "official" points of view. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Genuinely at a loss here. We should close this proposal "to avoid Censorship or imposing "official" points of view" but instead adopt your proposal above, which mandates exactly to impose an official wording... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Open I invite all to read the Comments in the flawed RfC presented above this proposal, where several editors have directly questioned the neutrality and wording of both proposals in the RfC. Sometimes in the middle of a discussion or RfC a better proposal comes along. This third less rigid proposal seems far more likely to achieve a open and transparent consensus and to report neutrally what the various reliable sources say by discussion and consensus, and is far more clearly designed to avoid Censorship or imposing "official" points of view. than the flawed prescribed choices that the orginal RfC presents. You can not label someone disruptive, just because you disagree with their alternative valid proposal. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• I don't really see the point of this. WP:Consensus can change, so no conclusion reached in the above RfC could be permanent and immutable. The central assumption of this alternative proposal – that there could be a long-term "mandated or sanctioned wording on this issue" that isn't responsive to later "open and transparent consensus" about "cover[age of] the essay, the background to it, and the resulting reactions" – simply isn't correct. Bastun is correct in how WP is written and re-written, but not correct in what an RfC like this is even capable of doing. If the RfC were to conclude, for example, that we should not mention this stuff at all in Rowling's article, as too-trivial "celeb gossip" (WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#NEWS), that could change a single day later if a bunch of high-quality sources make a renewed and bigger deal out of it due to further relevant events unfolding. Cf. WP:NOTPAPER; we can revise at any time, and any decision we ever make about content is "for now", pretty much by definition (except when it comes to stuff that must not be included at all, e.g. commercial advertising, unsourced negative claims about living people, promotion of fringe science in WP's own voice, etc.). In short, this "alternative proposal" is not one, but is simply a confusingly worded restatement of what we always do anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it is better to let the RfC above run its course. I won't deny that it might be necessary to get some kind of working solution, at least for the near future, to avoid further edit warring. I'd rather see an additional option than a proposal to close, but since there's no one volunteering a third option, we'll have to stick with the two we have now. Should someone propose a decent third option in the future, we can always re-open the discussion then.--Licks-rocks (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe this third proposal could be officially added to the above RfC ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  The problem is that this defeats the point of an RfC, which is precisely why it's disruptive. The very purpose of an RfC is to determine the outcome of a contentious issue that has not been resolved by the usual talk page discussion. I've looked at Talk:J. K. Rowling and it's clear why this is necessary. The discussions go on and on and on and haven't achieved much of anything. This proposal would just be a continuation of the status quo ante, which clearly wasn't working. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 21:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  But half of us, espicially the other side of the argument, have questioned the whole wording of the RfC. So thats why I was quick to prefer a more neutral start :) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'll add again that anyone is free to add a third suggested wording, and if it's better than A or B we'd likely support it. But "just decide nothing and keep arguing in circles forever" isn't an option. I would also like to have seen a more studiously neutral RfC wording, but most RfCs are not great in this regard. We parse them well enough and get through it anyway. It's not like an RfC writer's personal stance cannot be discerned in 99% of RfCs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  To be hopelessly honest While I am personally affected by JKR's essay and do object to the wording of the RfC I lack confidence in myself, both as a wordsmith and clever enough editor to be able to put together that better option. To my brain RfCs are still a new thing. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Crossroads - this is transparently disruptive. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 21:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• This proposal is meaningless and should be withdrawn. --JBL (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Trying to be constructive how about adding this alternative proposal BELOW to the above RfC

1.D Rowlings essay contained a series of comments about transgender annd transexual people, one of subjects covered was

"In refering to the safety of "natal girls and women" ..."When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside." Improvements gratefully accepted. I have no idea how to add it to the RfC and would be happy to recieve quality improvements. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Not a fan of the MOS:SCAREQUOTES around "natal girls and women". The issue with the longer quote is that this is not based solely on WP:Secondary sources like the other proposals are. It would be objected that we as editors should not be deciding what is significant enough in the primary source (the essay) to be worth quoting rather than sticking to what secondary sources consider significant. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I do accept that I have made a very basic error by going back to Rowling's own words and the proposal needs improvement. My intention of using the quotes around the safety of "natal girls and women" was to simply highlight that this option starts from Rowling's view on gender expressed in this one paragrah about washrooms you have chosen, that Rowlings was not mainly talking about her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, but about her worries about women & girls and transwomen & transmen. In your own proposals you have decided what is the significant highlight of all the many reports of her 3600 word essay, and you based this only one single WP:Secondary source, Reuters, to be used as the basis for this RfC. I do not understand why you are only using one single secondary source that supports 1A and ignoring all the many other reliable sources that cover Rowlings essay, and support 1B, Bastun' proposal and my own attempt.

The are many other equally valid sources that discuss Rowlings tweets and essay, here are just a few

Telegraph [Trust me, JK Rowling is spouting dangerous nonsense about trans people https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/trust-jk-rowling-spouting-dangerous-nonsense-trans-people/]

Independent [JK Rowling reveals sexual abuse and domestic violence in open letter defending transgender comments https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-transgender-letter-twitter-trans-people-a9559346.html]

BBC [JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53002557]

Guardian [JK Rowling row hints at generational rift on transgender rights https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jun/12/jk-rowling-row-hints-at-generational-rift-on-transgender-rights]

Guardian [Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate? https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate]

Los Angeles Times [Column: J.K. Rowling and the curse of bathroom politics https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2020-06-18/jk-rowling-trans-rights-bathroom-politics]

Independent [Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html]

~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

NBC [J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto' https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351]

Additional academic critique by Professor Sophie Grace Chappell (a transwoman) in the Crooked Timber [GUEST POST: An open letter to JK Rowling’s blog post on Sex and Gender, by Sophie Grace Chappell https://crookedtimber.org/2020/06/14/guest-post-an-open-letter-to-jk-rowling-blog-post-on-sex-and-gender-by-sophie-grace-chappell/] ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Option 1E (To be added to the above JK Rowling RfC)

Note: This Option is still a work in progress, I hope to have it finalized by the end of the weekend and welcome any recommendations.

Amended proposal "Following adverse reaction to her Tweets on gender and transsexual people, Rowling published a 3,600 word essay on the 10 June 2020, titled "J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues", in which she details five reasons why she is "worried about the new trans activism regarding transgender people in relation to natal women and girls." Concerns covered included the increased number of young trans men and the use of public washrooms and changing rooms by trans women. Rowling claimed that equality laws relating to letting trans women into women's toilets, even those with gender confirmation certificates, would be "opening the door to all men who wish to come inside". Mermaids replied that "We consider it abusive and damaging when people conflate trans women with male sexual predators.""

reworded following recommendations Amended proposal "Following adverse reaction to her Tweets on gender and transsexual people, Rowling published a 3,600 word essay on the 10 June 2020, titled "J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues", in which she details five reasons why she is "worried about the new trans activism regarding transgender people in relation to natal women and girls." Issues covered included in respect of the rise in the number of young transmen Rowling's expressed a concern that women who are not actually trans men are feeling pressure to transition. Another issue was the use of public washrooms and changing rooms, Rowling wrote regarding a proposed equality law relating to letting trans women into women's toilets, even those with gender confirmation certificates, would be "opening the door to all men who wish to come inside". Mermaids replied and "We consider it abusive and damaging when people conflate trans women with male sexual predators.

ReDraft 3

I have made major changes shown in purple, simply to make it easy for other editors to see the changes. I need to and will add citations from secondary sources done. Rowlings writes gender confirmation certificate whe she means Gender Recognition Certificate. Added Gender Recognition Certificate with wikilink to the Act, as adviced.

Option 1E

Following adverse reaction to her Tweets on gender and transsexual people, Rowling published a 3,600 word essay on the 10 June 2020, titled "J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues", in which she details five reasons why she is "worried about the new trans activism regarding transgender people in relation to natal women and girls." Among these reasons, she mentions her charity for women and children, being an ex-teacher, her interest in free speech, a concern about "the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition" and her experience as a victim of sexual and domestic abuse. Regarding the growth in the number of young transmen, Rowling said she believed misogyny and sexism, fuelled by social media, were reasons behind the 4,400% increase (in the UK) in the number of transmen transitioning in the past decade. Linking her own experience of sexual assault with her concern over transgender access to women only spaces, Rowling wrote regarding a proposed Scottish equality law, which she (mistakenly/note 1) believed would result in letting trans women into women's toilets. She wrote "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates" (Gender Recognition Certificate) "may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth." Mermaids, a British charity that supports gender variant and transgender youth, stated in an open letter that “To address the core of your point, trans rights do not come at the expense of women’s rights,” and "We consider it abusive and damaging when people conflate trans women with male sexual predators."(note2)"(note3)

.

Note 1 (it’s not an offence in UK law for a man to enter the ladies, and nobody needs to produce any proof of sex, is already possible, both in law and in practice, for “male sexual predators” to access women’s toilets for nefarious purposes. )

Optional Note 2 Britsh public attitude regards Transgender people using public toilets section ~ see pp 95-100 (espicially Table 5 View of transgender people using public toilets.) British Social Attitudes 2017 https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39196/bsa34_full-report_fin.pdf

Optional Note 3 Back in 2016, a survey shared by Reuters found that 60 percent of trans people had avoided using public bathrooms out of fear of confrontation, citing previous occurrences of assault or harassment, verbal abused or attacked by people who don’t think they should be there. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-survey/u-s-transgender-people-harassed-in-public-restrooms-landmark-survey-idUSKBN13X0BK U.S. transgender people harassed in public restrooms: landmark survey) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources all the above, but these two below at the very least cover the quotes: [J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto' https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351]

[Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html]

Further advise is welcome. I would like to add this proposal to the existing RfC, but do not know how to do it. I still scared of my peers and unsure if I have got everything right. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Updated ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Updated following advice ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC) fixed error made during my last update. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The claim that "Rowling wrote regarding a proposed Scottish equality law, which she (mistakenly/note 1) believed would result in letting trans women into women's toilets" is not supported and is WP:OR. There's no evidence of what Rowling believes about that proposed law; in the essay she addresses toilets before she addresses that proposed law (and she also addresses other single-sex spaces, not just toilets). That formulation makes it sound as "she opposes the proposed law because such a law would lead to men entering into women's toilets". That's disingenuous, the essay suggests she likely opposes the law for numerous other reasons. Also "equality law" is POV. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:43CB (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that rowlings bathroom claim directly implicates gender recognition certificates, that's neither OR nor POV, that's just a fact. And yes, there's secondary sources that have noted this. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Gender certificates are one thing, the proposed Scottish law is another thing. Rowling does not link directly the proposed Scottish law to toilets. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:43CB (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Rowling on toilets (linked to "gender certificates" ie the Gender Recognition Act 2004): "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside."
• Rowling on her opposition to proposed changes to Scottish law (not linked to toilets) "On Saturday morning, I read that the Scottish government is proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans, which will in effect mean that all a man needs to ‘become a woman’ is to say he’s one. To use a very contemporary word, I was ‘triggered’." 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:43CB (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. It has the same POV issues as 1B, making the changing room matter out to be about trans women only. "Claimed" is a problem per WP:CLAIM. "Equality laws" is POV. There's no point in saying "five problems" if we don't say what they are. "Increased number of young trans men" is another misinterpetation, because Rowling's concern is that women who are not actually trans men are feeling pressure to transition. Use of "transsexual" will lead to complaints. Let's just quote her directly. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

a.) "Let's just quote her directly" :) But you already kindly advised me above to use Secondary Sources for a proposal....but if we are she did not write "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman ... then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside" but "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. notice the middle bit is about transwomen. I personally believe 1A has a POV issue too when it frames the question from Rowlings personal experience as survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and not from the main subject of her essay that is the relationship between transpeople and who she describes as natal women.

b.) Thanks for the advice re claimed.

c.) Equality Law is not POV they are fact, though if you read academic critique of Rowlings Essay by Professor Sophie Grace Chappell (a transwoman) in the Crooked Timber [GUEST POST: An open letter to JK Rowling’s blog post on Sex and Gender, by Sophie Grace Chappell https://crookedtimber.org/2020/06/14/guest-post-an-open-letter-to-jk-rowling-blog-post-on-sex-and-gender-by-sophie-grace-chappell/] you will realise that Rowlings (and myself) was mistaken about this whole topic.

d.) Your corrections regards the pressure on Rowling's concern is that women who are not actually trans men are feeling pressure to transition. are perfectly valid and an improvement.

e,) Regards the use of the term Transexual i respect to your experience, as a Transperson myself I get unsure myself, mostly I call myself Me. I am not an activist, I am far too uncertain even two plus decades after everything. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

"There's no point in saying she mentioned five problems if we don't say what they are" I don't necessarily agree with that, mostly just because it definitely gives the reader a clearer picture of how the text was set up. The phrase "among these" was made for exactly this purpose. It is definitely better than just not acknowledging the rest of the text in favour of a single quote, as you still seem intent on doing.--Licks-rocks (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. This option is worse than the other options for me, for a variety of reasons. I don't actually see why you felt the need to reword the struckthrough proposal to this one.

1. "that women who are not actually trans men are feeling pressure to transition" - this is really unpleasant weasel wording for me. It definitely plays into the generically transphobic rhetoric, and I'd confidently call it a dogwhistle for that. It is not encyclopedic language. Wikipedia presents the facts. It doesn't emphasise them with italics and lead someone hand-in-hand to a conclusion that some transgender men should be discredited for...generally really vague reasons, easily changeable from person to person. It upsets me to see this presented as something we could add to Wikipedia.

2. "Rowling wrote regarding a proposed equality law relating to letting trans women into women's toilets, even those with gender confirmation certificates" - trans women already use women's toilets. There is no UK law banning anyone from using a toilet because it doesn't line up with their passport. Gender recognition certificates - they're not called "Gender confirmation certificates", as the barrier to getting one doesn't require surgery anymore - aren't and never have been used for this purpose, and hopefully never will. Gender is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act of 2010; it means that anyone can use the toilet aligning with their gender identity, and that they have a right to do so. I used the men's loos before I even started testosterone, and I haven't even been seen by the GIC yet. That was my right as a transgender person; to imply that trans people at present aren't allowed into the right toilets just isn't true.

Point is: I don't think this is an improvement, or necessary. I think what you struckthrough was the better option, in all honesty, apart from the bit about gender confirmation certificates needing changing. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I am grateful for your input. Atm I see my option as a work in progress, to be improved. Its 1.30 am here, so I will have a better look tomorrow at your recommendations.

I may have reacted too quickly from the advice and wanting to be very co-operative. Rowlings does talk about pressure, but in a much more subtle way than I have expressed.

You are exactly right about UK law regards the whole washroon/toilet issue, the trouble is Rowlings and many of the Secondary sources missed this fact. I want this proposed option to be the best it can be rather than be fixed at this stage. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the section on the rise of transmen, removed the shorthand pressure to a fuller description of her believes. Also sorry I forgot to add regards gender confirmation certificates, its Rowlings words I am quoteing her directly (maybe I should have a correction beside her error mid quote but not sure how to present properly...i have made an attempt) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

A couple of things to be clarified with regard to the legal issues addressed above:

• the Equality Act 2010 does not contain gender, as such, as a protected characteristic; the protected characteristics are: "age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation." [14] Gender reassignment is defined as such: "7 Gender reassignment: (1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex." So while gender reassignment does not have to include any medical treatment being or having been performed, and it is sufficient for the trans person to be "proposing to undergo [...] a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex", it is not exactly correct to say that: "Gender is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act of 2010; it means that anyone can use the toilet aligning with their gender identity, and that they have a right to do so" because one's gender identity doesn't have to include an intention to do anything medically. On the other hand, you are right when you say that: "trans women already use women's toilets. There is no UK law banning anyone from using a toilet because it doesn't line up with their passport" and it's also true that Gender certificates "aren't and never have been used for this purpose" as you put it. Indeed, people entering a toilet, is not, in and of itself, illegal, regardless of the toilet. In most cases, enforcement of sex separation in toilets is more a social norm and regulations are rather the informal responsibility of those in charge of the toilets in question. (this whole explanation may be rather irrelevant to the topic, but I saw that one editor brought the Equality Act 2010 so I though it would be good to clarify).
• If we want to address laws (though I think it's uncalled for) we should take into account that Rowling is based in Scotland and Scottish law is different from English law. Rowling was talking about a proposed law in Scotland; she wrote in her essay: "On Saturday morning, I read that the Scottish government is proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans, which will in effect mean that all a man needs to ‘become a woman’ is to say he’s one." 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:4238 (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Again Useful feed back. Thanks. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The better question that should be asked is should toilets really be addressed in that one paragraph summary of her essay? It really makes a mockery of the 3600 words essay to summarize it as "look what Rowling says about toilets!!!". Major issues addressed in the essay:

• concerns about the fact that the view that sex is determined by biology is not protected in law as it relates to the possibility of employment discrimination against people who hold such views (the Maya Forstater legal case)
• concerns about lesbians not dating transwomen with male genitals being called bigots
• concerns about how some aspects of trans activism relate to children's, gays' and women's rights
• concerns about freedom of speech
• concerns about how the label TERF is being used
• concerns about female prisoners and survivors of domestic and sexual abuse (add prisons here, not just toilets, with regard to sex separation)
• concerns about sex being replaced with gender as it relates to her activism on multiple sclerosis
• concerns about pressure to transition, increases in number of girls transitioning, loss of fertility after transition process, and possible regret
• concerns about censoring academic research and harassing academics
• concerns that sexualization and scrutiny of girls' bodies and rigid gender roles may lead some girls to transition when that may not be the best solution (here she refers to her own childhood and teen eyes)
• concerns about increased misogyny and silencing of women, and some forms of trans activism not helping at all and reinforcing this negative climate
• concerns about the definition of "woman", of the term "woman" being left without any clear meaning, reduced to abstract feelings of somebody or to gender stereotypes; use of terms she views demeaning and alienating ("menstruators", "people with vulvas")
• concerns about women's safety; here she talks about her own history of abuse and what it meant and still means to her and possibly other women (stressing the need to protect both such women and transwomen, the latter with whom she can also relate as she understands tranwomen' fear of violence through her own experience of violence)
• concerns about public discourse often being virtue signaling rather than substance
• concerns about inability to consider women as a political and biological class, who have common experiences due to their biological sex, denying the importance of biological sex in women's lives

This essay simply cannot be summarized as a paragraph about toilets! 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:4238 (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, we can only reasonably cover aspects that were emphasized by being mentioned in secondary sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not denying your detailed analysis, but Wikipedia is based on what are considered Reliable Secondary sources, not the actual Primary Essay. It took me personally years to accept this, espicially when you consider that I personally believe the media is largely Conservative, white, upper middle class etc controlled & biased etc etc. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course we have to go with what sources say, but with regard to whether we address in any way the toilet issue, we have to also use our judgment: in a 3600 words essay, Rowling addresses toilets once, one single phrase on toilets! That being said, I'm not sure this RFC is going in the right direction. It was meant to be a RFC on specific wording on the issue of toilets regarding a controversy about Rowling's views on access to women's toilets that started on the main talk page; the RFC was not meant for deciding if we address toilets at all or if we also address other things from the essay. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:43CB (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It is the area most raised/reported upon in all the reliable secondary sources. It was Rowlings decision to purposefully throw the bathroom debate as the cherry on top of a her “concerns” around “single-sex spaces”, which rapidly translates to “bathrooms” in her essay. Rowling’s phrasing and choice of examples matters, especially considering she is one of the most celebrated living writers. This version does at least mention 'Women only spaces and refers to the other issues, espicially the growth in the numbers in transmen, which is in reality relates to a tiny figure. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• comment I will have a crack at checking the wording for this later, for now, let's re-include the bit describing Mermaids as a gender non-conforming children's charity. Not everyone is familiar with them, after all. I think it's a bit too soon to oppose or support this, but I'm happy to see someone actually taking me up on my words and creating a new and improved proposal. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• commentUser:Ineffablebookkeeper (talk User:Licks-rocks, User:Crossroads No doubt you are watching the page but as you have responded to previous versions, this is a curtsy note that Option 3 1E has had big redraft. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

commentI think it looks decent. Note 2 is maybe a bit much, and I suspect crossroads will have something to object to it. I do not have time to hunt for sources right now, but several need to be added. I've made a start by tagging some on at the end. I hope they cover a majority of what you've said, but if anything is missing, you'll probably need to either take it out, or find a (preferably secondary) source referencing it. I'm pretty sure the independent covers note one, so you can replace your note with that. --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the refs with a temporary set. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• I oppose this wording as it's basically a he-said-she-said with shades of "my black friend". Guy (help!) 10:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing this, apart from the very short reply from the mermaids charity this is mostly about what she said, infact it could be critised for being onesided. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Covers the essay's five main points without going into too much detail, while the previous versions cherry-pick particular sentences out of a 3,6000 word essay. If we are going to have an RfC on the BLP page decide on the content of a BLP and an associated non-biogrpahical article, then is the way to do it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. ~ as proposer as this proposal more accurately reflects both Rowlings whole Essay and the main reliable sources' take on it. We could add from same Mermaids letter “The Gender Recognition Act is about changing your birth certificate only, and nobody has to produce a birth certificate to use the bathroom or a changing room." Plus espicially should add/include that ~ On 19 June 2020, the Equality Act was blocked in the Senate after Republican senator James Lankford opposed it, citing Rowling's essay as part of his reasoning. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

References

• comment I repeat my request to get rid of the notes. They break up the flow of the text and are mostly redundant. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not against their removal, do we need something to explain that nobody has to produce a certificate to use the bathroom or a changing room? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that will be nessecary. --Licks-rocks (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

removed the notes ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I still oppose this and with all due respect, see this effort as a dead end. I already said what I support above. These proposals are too long, they contain WP:Editorializing and WP:Synthesis, especially in the notes, and it's just not necessary. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

could you please start explaining how and where the WP's you keep citing apply, instead of leaving the people actually trying to create an acceptable new proposal to figure it out on their own? you're honestly being more of a burden than a productive editor right now. Or, since you like WP's so much, please observe WP:NOBRICKS and act accordingly. --Licks-rocks (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I think this version, when it comes to the changing room issue has as much WP:Editorializing and WP:Synthesis as your own proposals (though I fully accept that this maybe considered true by some editors only after I have removed ref to scottish law phrase), espicially if we just look at the single source you use Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? which starts “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling released a 3,600 word essay on Wednesday linking her experience of sexual assault with her concern over transgender access to women only spaces." ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. If toilets are addressed, I oppose any formulation other than a direct quote from the essay; just say: "J. K. Rowling expressed concern about single-sex women's spaces, writing: "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside."" Any other attempt to interpret is likely going to break many policies, formulations such as "[...]she (mistakenly/note 1) believed would result in [...]" are unacceptable (as an aside the issue is not just whether it is an offense under the law for a man to enter, which is what the proposed note makes reference; "access" to women's spaces is much more complex, just because a man does not break any law by merely entering there doesn't mean that he cannot be legitimately asked to leave by those in charge of the toilet, and also if he committed a crime against a woman in there the onus would be on him to explain why he was in a woman's single-sex space in first place; we don't know what Rowling means by "throw open the doors", the term that she uses). 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:40A6 (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

To me the link between the scottish law and bathrooms and changing rooms are linked because in the writers 3600 word essay she has it side by side ...to direct quote from the same same section of Rowling's essay

"At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.

On Saturday morning, I read that the Scottish government is proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans, which will in effect mean that all a man needs to ‘become a woman’ is to say he’s one. To use a very contemporary word, I was ‘triggered’."

So it is not unreasonable for readers to be triggered into connecting the two. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Update: After feedback I removed both the notes and reference to the Scottish law link to changing rooms - even if I strongly believe Rowlings intended the reader to connect them, her quote is enough. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Neutral sources on the J.K. Rowling matter

By "neutral sources", I obviously don't mean "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.", as stated at WP:BIASED SOURCES. I routinely point to WP:BIASED SOURCES in arguments and/or state that, per WP:Neutral, what is neutral in common discourse is not what being neutral means on Wikipedia. Still, in this case, I simply mean sources that report on both sides of the debate without judging either side. At the Rowling talk page, there is some concern about not giving better context with regard to Rowling's position and/or mentioning that she has received some support. This is why including Dana International's support of Rowling has been proposed in this RfC. Well, I think that this and this The Guardian reference are among the sources that do a good job of reporting on the matter neutrally.

For example, among other things, the first source ("Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate?") states, "But beyond this there is huge disagreement about how different positions – whether those of transgender activists or gender-critical feminists – express that commitment in practice, and indeed what the nuances of those different positions are. Gender critical feminists disagree with the trans rights activists' view that gender identity is separate from one's biological sex, and that it should be given priority in terms of law-making and policy. They fear that sex is being argued into non-existence and that this will erode rights hard-won by women in the face of historical biological discrimination. Others regard the focus on biological sex as transphobic. They argue that while they do not deny the reality of biological sex there must be a recognition of complexities beyond binary definition, and that people should have the right to privacy around their sex characteristics at birth (as was agreed in the European convention on human rights in 2002, which led to the current Gender Recognition Act)."

Among other things, the second source ("JK Rowling: from magic to the heart of a Twitter storm") states, "Arrayed on Rowling's side are some of the veteran voices of feminism, including the radical Julie Bindel, who spoke out in support this weekend: 'Her political position is nothing to do with transgender issues. She has always been a feminist and she has inspired generations of young women and men to look into issues of sex-based discrimination,' she told the Observer. [...] The controversy looks unlikely to die out soon precisely because Rowling still means so much to so many. The contending attitudes also go to the heart of the question of whether transgender rights affect the rights of cisgender women and girls and of whether the transgender community's fears of abuse and violence are more valid and pressing. Beyond even that, the very nature of feminine and masculine characteristics, and of who gets to define them, seems to be in flux."

The above sources are just two suggestions when it comes to using sources to relay both sides. I'll leave all the debating on what to include to others. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. These are very good sources and show that the anti-Rowling side is not the only legitimate side; hence acting as if it were is POV. I would support the possibility of using these sources in the section, but I won't suggest anything specific right now since I don't want to overcomplicate the RfC, and because many votes have already been submitted. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. The RfC is about a) locking down a particular wording on one sentence (though apparently that can't actually be done as it can always be changed later); and b) whether or not to include reference to Dana International, using only two named sources. And is not about anything else. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I know how RfCs work. And it is common for alternative proposals to be put forth during them, which is why you see alternative proposals above this subsection. My suggestion for sources in this subsection pertains to the Dana International aspect, as something to be added in addition to or as an alternative to it. "[L]ocking down a particular wording on one sentence" can absolutely be done. And it is being done above. The fact that the WP:Consensus can change policy exists does not stop us from implementing current consensus when an RfC closes. Anyway, I respect what Crossroads stated about not wanting a distraction with respect to the RfC. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Rosianne Cutajar

Article says that she was elected directly to the Maltese Parliament in the 2019 elections. There were no general elections held in 2019 in Malta. The bit that states that she became a member of parliament by virtue of a casual election following the 2017 elections is correct. There have not been any general elections since.

Stefan Molyneux

The page repeatedly asserts Stefan Molyneux's own views via third-parties' opinions but with few actual citations of said views. I examined citations chosen based on the severity and unilaterality of the statement to which the cite served as reference, though I stopped after the first section. 15 of the 17 that I examined showed extreme bias and hence appear to establish a narrative solely via proof by assertion. Not only do these third-party opinions repeatedly fail to establish any factual basis, one was demonstrably false, and another appeared to intentionally produce misquotes via bracketing. 11 of these cites, I believe was the count, appeared to accuse Stefan Molyneux of white supremacist views without making any attempt to produce even a shred of evidence. For these 11 citations, the veracity of the Wikipedia article relies completely on a third-party's say-so.

Stefan Molyneux's biography page was at some point locked after dozens of attempts at blanking various sections. This was repeatedly claimed to be due to lack of cite veracity, but the reverting party also repeatedly claimed "it has cites." Yes... but those cites are quite often nonsense. This pattern has continued at least since 2019 if not earlier. More details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stefan_Molyneux#This_page_is_not_encyclopedic

2601:346:C280:58DF:A5B8:94CD:EA6E:1BFC (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not intended to "prove" anything. We do not claim to prove the Earth is spherical, the Sun is hot, a virus causes the flu, water is wet or anything else. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say.

Independent reliable sources say Molyneux is a Canadian far-right, white nationalist and white supremacist podcaster and former YouTuber who is best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacist views. This is verifiable. As a result, Wikipedia says that Molyneux is a Canadian far-right, white nationalist and white supremacist podcaster and former YouTuber who is best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacist views. That he says otherwise is immaterial. That you feel sources should have to "prove" what they say is immaterial.

If independent reliable sources said that Molyneux is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say "Stefan Molyneux is a cheese sandwich." That the sources do not prove he is a stack of bread with cheese in the middle is immaterial. Molyneux would verifiably be a cheese sandwich. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Except that per WP:LABEL we just don't say that factually in Wikivoice, and we still need to respect an impartial tone to the article. You can't say "Molyneux is a Canadian far-right, white nationalist and white supremacist podcaster and former YouTuber who is best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacist views." but you can say "Molyneux is a Canadian podcaster and former YouTuber who is (widely?) considered to be a far-right white nationalist and white supremacist, and known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacist views." Same information but outside of Wikivoice making the claim (on the basis the body will have the sourcing to clearly back this up) and trying to stay impartial as best we can to introduce him for as little impartial aspects there are to his current position. The only factor I don't know is if you can say "widely" or note as it depends on how many and broadly the sources cover that, and that's a point for discussion on the talk page. --Masem (t) 03:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Various Molyneux supporters favor saying "Molyneux is a Canadian podcaster and former Youtuber." However, Molyneux is not notable because he is a podcaster and former Youtuber. Molyneux is notable because he is a far-right, white nationalist, etc. The lead summarizes the rest of the article. You want attribution in the summary? Fine, here's the new lead: "Stephan Molyneux is a Canadian podcaster. SPLC says he is a propagandist for the racist alt-right. SPLC, Columbia Journalism Review, Data & Society Research Institute, The Guardian, and Palgrave Macmillan say he promotes scientific racism. SPLC says he promotes eugenics. SPLC says he uses pseudo-scientific sources. Data & Society Research Institute says he promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories. Palgrave Macmillan says his lectures are ill-researched and scientifically unsound. Politico Magazine and The Washington Post say he is alt-right. CNN says he is far right. CNN says his podcast is far right and frequently gives a platform to white nationalists. The New York Times says he promotes racist conspiracy theories. The New York Times says he is right wing. The New York Times says he is fixated on "race realism", a favored topic of white nationalists. The New York Times says he promotes white nationalists. The Independent says he has a perverse fixation on race and IQ. The Times and Channel 5 describe him as a cult leader. The Globe and Mail says he is often compared to a cult leader. The Daily Beast says his podcast is often compared to a cult." Seems rather wordy to me. Rewriting that as a summary in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view, we clearly, concisely and neutrally state what reliable sources say. Where did all of those descriptors come from? The body of the article, where each one is spelled out and sourced. That's a lead section: name and other basic info and "(w)hy the person is notable".MOS:OPENPARABIO - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but perhaps you should read what Masem actually wrote before jumping straight into argument from absurdity. And if a reliable source says a human being is a cheese sandwich then we would have to seriously question that source's reliability, would we not? There are many sources that say honey cures cancer, but we don't put those in the honey article for very good reason. Blindly repeating obviously bad sources would not be in Wikipedia's best interest, nor those of our readers. Zaereth (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not decide if a source is right and then decide if it is reliable or not based on that. Plenty of sources say Paris is the capital of France. They are all right. The vast majority of them are not reliable.

Yes, there are many sources that say honey cures cancer, the Earth is flat, one race is superior to others and other assorted nonsense. We don't put those in articles because reliable sources do not make those claims.

Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. Reliable sources repeatedly, consistently do more than "label" Molyneux a right-wing, white nationalist, etc. That's how they identify him. It's the difference between saying Albert Einstein was a chess player and identifying him as a theoretical physicist who developed one of the two pillars of modern physics. Molyneux probably has lots of non-notable traits. He is notable because he is a far-right white supremacist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

??? Perhaps you should read what I actually wrote as well, because the person you're arguing with seems to be yourself. I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but I guess it makes sense in your own mind. Zaereth (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It is important to note why a person is notable in the lede paragraph, but nothing says that notability takes priority over impartiality. As long as you get to the notable facets before the paragraph is complete, you have satisifed the BIO side of things and by putting the most "factual" and "objective" information first and foremost, you achieve some degree of impartiality. There is no requirement, and definitely should not be urged, to be coming out of the door at a BLP swinging as to why a person is "bad". If that's anyone's goal writing an article, they need to step away from it. That's not to whitewash any valid criticism that has been made, and I will assume that a proper survey of sources for Molyneux will reveal these labels are used frequently enough (rather than single uses by one or two articles) that we fairly use them as broad generalizations in the lede as I suggested after first introducing the person (the "is considered to be" stuff). Now, if it was the case that you'd only have one or two articles with these labels rather than a wide swath of sourced, then that's questionable to even put in the lede as UNDUE, but I don't believe that's the case you need here for Molyneux.

And key thing is that Wikipedia does report what the media says but we recognize the media can be bias and at times subjective, that's why WP:LABEL calls for putting their use in non-factual statment ("is considered to be" rather than "is") or using direction attribution. We're still reporting what the media says per DUE, just that we try to be more conservative (not politically) with our stance and are careful what is stated in Wikivoice particularly for BLP. --Masem (t) 21:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem, true, but pretty much without exception every mainstream source that reported the Google ban described him as a white supremacist, a racist, a white nationalist, or some combination of those three. He's not a YouTuber who is a white nationalist, he is a white nationalist who YouTubes. Guy (help!) 14:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

But for our purposes, a "white nationalist" is a label, and does not reflect an objective career or similar type of statement of profession/function a person served; at best it is a statement of their ideological belief system. We're not denying that this is a label frequently used by the media but we still have to treat it as a label for our purposes as an impartial encyclopedia which means it does not belong in an initial objective sentence of the article; after that it is fair game though tone and everything still needs to be adhere to; our goal should not be to make Molyneux look "bad" in Wikivoice, but establish that it is the popular opinion via the media that Molyneux is considered "bad". We have to be super careful of letting popular opinion swing into factual statements in Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 14:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

No, the goal is not to "make Molyneux look 'bad'". The goal is to "come out swinging" explaining why he is notable. He is notable because he is a white nationalist, etc. Were he notable as a philosopher, economist, historian, sociologist, political theorist, journalist and socialist revolutionary like Karl Marx, we'd say that -- even if you think being a socialist revolutionary is "bad". He's a white nationalist; we don't bury that because you think it's a bad thing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm still confused about who you are trying to convince, us or yourself. Who said anything about burying it? So where is this coming from, and who is it directed at? You're obviously very passionate about it, although the world and wikipolicy is nowhere near as black and white as you make it out to be, and the absolute absurdity of some of your statememts are not helping your case. I'm just confused because your arguments have absolutely nothing to do with anybody else' statements. I can't find a single instance of where anyone suggested burying this except you. Zaereth (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"come out swinging" explaining why he is notable Absolutely no policy says to do this. You do want to get why someone's notable before too long in the lede, ideally within that first paragraph, but notability is still a guideline while BLP's impartiality and of course NPOV are policies that must be adhered too first. Every case I've seen, not just Molyneux's here , where editors have rushed to add the labels as first sentence, can easily reworked to put those labels in to the second sentence, or a second phrase on the first sentence, drastically improving the tone and neutrality of such articles without any bit of whitewashing. --Masem (t) 15:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem, his goal is a white nation. Guy (help!) 15:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Taking that at face value, and even on the assumption that a term like "white nationalist" could be used "objectively", I would still think that is like a political party or similar type of association , rather than a career or a function of society that should in the immediate lead-off sentence in an article. We don't describe politicians by their political party in their lede sentence (unless they hold a key position in that party). There's a separate argument on whether "white nationalist" is a label or not for Molyneux's case, but just on the term "white nationalist", it is simply not a career function that we normally put into that first sentence. --Masem (t) 15:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem, nice try. When he was banned from YouTube, pretty much every source described him as a white nationalist, white supremacist or simply racist. Wikipedia does not have any policy requiring us to put genies back in bottles or cats back into bags. Guy (help!) 22:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact is that the independent, reliable sources agree that Molyneux is a far-right figure and that that is what he is known for. WP:LABEL has been stretched beyond its intended application, I believe, when it is used to require that even undisputed political labels be attributed in cases where the subject's racism or far-right tendencies are undisputed. Newimpartial (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, nobody said anything about attributing it either. Masem suggested adding two words, "widely considered", to the sentence that is already there. What is wrong with that? It's the difference between stating it in Wikivoice (ie: leading the average reader to believe we Wikipedians have made this conclusion) and having it be a conclusion made by the sources. I don't see how those two words hurt the article, in fact they make it much more believable. Zaereth (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Phrases like "widely considered" function as editorialized weasel words to soften or introduce doubt towards the conclusion reached by reliable sources. If all or virtually all sources agree—to the point where UNDUE viewpoints are excluded—then we shouldn't need a qualifier at all, we should just summarize those sources. Take our article on evolution, we don't say that it's widely considered to be a change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Doing so would imply that reliable sources don't agree, which misrepresents the consensus of sources and is ultimately an end run around NPOV. Woodroar (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Scientific theories like evolution can be objectively determined through numerous documented quantitative and measured practices that, while not eliminating all other possibilities, give a reason that there's near universal acceptance of the concept within the field. You can never objectively determine a label, as by definitely a label is subjective and cannot never be objectively evaluated since everyone is going to have a different definition. That's the fundamental difference with labels compared to scientific concepts. --Masem (t) 15:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Also in the context of UNDUE and eliminating minor viewpoints - when we are taking theories in the scientific context and the ones that are taken as fact, we're clearly talking that a near majority of all scientists - not just top ones, but broadly across all schools and over several decades of exploration of that topic - have accepted the idea. When we turn to talking about a person being called a label, we have to realize that we're looking at first a very limited subset of sources (those we consider RSes), which do not reflect the broad public opinion. We are also looking at these at one very short period of time - typically a year or few years of activity - and not considering how the person in question will be looked at years down the road. It would be far different if we were talk Molyneux in 2070 via academic sources that all called him a white nationalist compared to a selection of media sources today. It is why we need to be more tempered than the press in presenting labels because that only reflects a subset of the world view. Using language like "widely considered" takes that all into account without losing the importance of the notability factor here and keeps it all out of Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 15:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Woodroar, there are very large numbers of evolutionary biologists, and the few evolution holdouts are insignificant in proportion. There are only a few people studying scientific racism (because it's not scientific, it's just racism) and the dissenters are therefore a bigger proportion of the active community. Guy (help!) 15:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Plenty of reliable sources cover white supremacy and other related subjects. Do our policies require that we automatically downgrade them to mere opinion when they're in non-"hard science" disciplines? I don't know of any such policies. We use reliable sources in evolutionary biology to support factual claims about evolution just as we use reliable sources in literary criticism to support factual claims about textual analysis just as we use reliable sources in sociology and ethnic studies (or other multidisciplinary approaches) to support factual claims about supremacism. Or we should. It's true that some fields may not have p-values but that doesn't mean they don't examine evidence or that they don't have a method or that a fact-based consensus doesn't develop. Woodroar (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

"Widely considered" can be weasel words when used on their own. But it's not that black and white. It all depends on context. For example, "they" is a common weasel word, but only if there is no indication of who "they" are, otherwise it's just a pronoun. If you have text that shows exactly who considers him this, then it's not a weasel word, and we do have plenty of sources in the body of the article to provide that context. As SummerPhD pointed out above, there is no doubt that the term is an accurate description.

There is a huge science that studies racism. It's called psychology, and neuropsychology. I've studied it for a long time, because it fascinates me how the mind works, and where I grew up in my childhood the whole thing was a completely foreign concept. Alaska Natives are like the least racist people I have ever known, and it wasn't until I got into high-school that I ever encountered it in person, so I found the whole concept to be perplexing. There has been a lot, and I mean a lot, of study done on the matter and much has been written about it.

In this discussion there seems to be lot of confusion about what constitutes fact and opinion, to use journalistic terms. Scientifically, "attributes" and "reasoning". Does evolution really happen? Absolutely. (This is also a subject that fascinates me, and I've studied it very thoroughly.) The dog is an excellent example of evolution, considering they all evolved from wolves to become one of the most diverse species to ever exist. Evolution in insects can easily be recorded and documented, due to their short lifespans and high generational rates. However, the theory of why it happens will always be just that, a theory. Now you're delving into reasoning, an that is always a distinctly different thing than attributes (facts). Darwin had a great theory for its time, but new facts emerged since then that Darwin never even considered, such as DNA, and the fact that DNA can be altered and its expression reprogrammed within even a single lifetime. (When an astronaut goes into space for example, the change in gravity causes a change in the DNA expressions that begin adapting her to the new environment, ie: the cells in the kidneys begin to change to better function in zero-g, the bone begin weakening, the legs begin shortening, and this all begins almost immediately after entering zero-g.) Or that interbreeding within groups with a small genetic pool will tend to evolve along certain lines, depending on many other fators. All these things are recordable and therefore verifiable phenomena, or "attributes". With each new discovery scientists like Rothschild and Lister must go back and revise their theory to fit the new information (see the broader interpretation of the incompleteness theorem.)

"White nationalism" is not an attribute. The very suffix "-ism" denotes that. It's not a psychological classification nor does it have anything to do with nationalism beyond the word's association with the Nazi party and the connotations that gives, I guess. As far as I can tell, it the current buzzword that the racists on one side use to call the racists on the other. It's really meaningless in terms of any psychological context. Either way, it's not a job or a profession or anything else we can all a physical attribute. Someone has to look at what he's done and reason in their minds that this is what he is --what classification he falls under-- and that should not be Wikipedia. Nor would it have as much believability if it was, not even a fraction. (That's why weasel words are used in the first place, because they lend more credence to the statement, and this is true even when they aren't being used as weasel words.) If you think they make it less believable, then you're looking at it all backwards. Even if he calls himself by that label, I would still add something like "self-proclaimed" so that we're not appearing as though we're drawing that conclusion ourselves. Zaereth (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't doubt that psychology studies racism, but it's certainly not the only discipline. And perhaps we're talking about different definitions of racism as well. On the one hand, you've got individuals believing one race is superior, using racial slurs, and perhaps engaging in violence. That appears to be the primary meaning in the APA dictionary. But there's also institutional/systemic racism that perpetuates racial disparities within the criminal justice system and availability of services and also white privilege. As it's a systemic issue, that kind of racism gets studied by many disciplines: sociology, ethnic studies, anthropology, humanities, criminology, political science, the list goes on. If you read our article on Racism in the United States, you'll see reliable sources from a great number of fields. So it's not like we'd need a psychologist to diagnose some attribute or disorder in Molyneux. Many experts from many fields can see his videos/podcasts and place his views within frameworks like white nationalism, white supremacy, far-right, and all kinds of terms that Molyneux might not like. And they do. Woodroar (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• I know this is technically WP:PRIMARY WP:OR but Here is a clip from this video (start at 52m50s) where Molyneux says he is no longer skeptical of white nationalism or Identitarianism and argues that white nationalism works. That may not be explicit self-identification, but it makes no difference -- he is saying that white nationalism works while also saying that it's wrong to call it out, out of some belief that there's an organized leftist plot targeting white men. Here is another video where he accuses everyone else of trying to pull down "white civilization" and attacking the "white race" because they're jealous of white people's achievements.
  Now, it would be against policy to use those sources in isolation to identify him in the article as anything but it does indicate that the reason reliable sources say he's a white nationalist is the same reason reliable sources say Paris is the capital of France. The comparison to evolution doesn't work because there are professionally published sources people (even if a completely fringe minority who know nothing about science) who sincerely believe that evolution is false (again, completely wrong). There are no professional sources sincerely arguing that Molyneux is not a white nationalist, his fans just want us to not point that out because that gets in the way of normalizing his ideas as just another ideology. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Working on the basis that we can accept that Molyneux not only self-identifies as a white nationalist, backed with the press that say he is as well, the issue still is that "white nationalist" is a ideological position much like "Democrat", "conservative" or the like. These are not job or career titles but simply how their personal philosophy. If you survey BIOs and BLPs articles, nearly all the time (the excepts being for people like Molyneux at the fringes of ideological scales), we rarely ever introduce the person by the ideology in the first part of the lede sentence, even for professional politicians; if the ideological factors are important, they come in the second or later sentences as necessary. So part of the problem is that when we lede an article like Molyneux's with "Molyneux is a white nationalist..." we're not following the same impartial approach we take for nearly all other articles. It is because I think editors on these "BLPs on the ideological fringe" tend to get hung up on wanting to call out that ideological fringe - which is important, but it can't override neutrality or impartiality.
  • Now as best as I can tell, "far-right" and "white supremacist" are not labels that Molyneux has self-identified, so these should still be treated as labels with either attribution or other language to take them out of wikivoice.
  • In the specific case of the current lede of Molyneux's article Stefan Basil Molyneux is a Canadian far-right, white nationalist[2] and white supremacist podcaster and former YouTuber who is best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacist views. the proper way to say that in consideration of the "white nationalist" issue would Stefan Basil Molyneux is a Canadian podcaster and former YouTube. Molyneux, a white nationalist, is recognized for his far-right and white supremacist views and his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, an eugenics. Neutral , keeps lables out of Wikivoice (assuming the same sourcing) and keeps all the same information. --Masem (t) 00:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• I would phrase it differently. He is not notable because he is a white nationalist. He is notable because he addresses issues of race, prompting some to smear him as white nationalist. The solution to this dilemma is to construct our sentences saying who is calling him a white nationalist. Or to put it in other terms, we should not assert he is a white nationalist in Wikipedia's voice. It may be more cumbersome to use "in-line attribution" but the assertion that someone is a white nationalist/white supremacist is a very serious charge. The reader should be apprised of the source of that charge before that charge is even made. Thus if the Southern Poverty Law Center wants to call him a white nationalist/white supremacist, the sentence should say "According to the Southern Poverty Law Center Molyneux is a..." Bus stop (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

"Stephan Molyneux is a Canadian podcaster and former YouTuber. SPLC says he is a propagandist for the racist alt-right. SPLC, Columbia Journalism Review, Data & Society Research Institute, The Guardian, and Palgrave Macmillan say he promotes scientific racism. SPLC says he promotes eugenics. SPLC says he uses pseudo-scientific sources. Data & Society Research Institute says he promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories. Palgrave Macmillan says his lectures are ill-researched and scientifically unsound. Politico Magazine and The Washington Post say he is alt-right. CNN says he is far right. CNN says his podcast is far right and frequently gives a platform to white nationalists. The New York Times says he promotes racist conspiracy theories. The New York Times says he is right wing. The New York Times says he is fixated on "race realism", a favored topic of white nationalists. The New York Times says he promotes white nationalists. The Independent says he has a perverse fixation on race and IQ. The Times and Channel 5 describe him as a cult leader. The Globe and Mail says he is often compared to a cult leader. The Daily Beast says his podcast is often compared to a cult."

Absolutely no source in the past 5 years says "Stefan Molyneux is a podcaster" without explaining the he is a white nationalist. Wikipedia will...um... soften what the sources say? "White nationalist YouTube agitators including Stefan Molyneux...", "Stefan Molyneux, a Canadian white nationalist who has been accused of promoting ‘scientific racism’...", "A libertarian internet commentator and alleged cult leader who amplifies "scientific racism," eugenics and white supremacism to a massive new audience, Stefan Molyneux...", "Those stars included Stefan Molyneux, who promotes topics like scientific racism...", "... Stefan Molyneux, one of the most popular promoters of the alt-right’s new scientific racism.", etc. We aren't digging deep down into articles about him, that's how sources explain who he is. It's as if someone is asking, "Who is Stefan Molyneux?" In the past five years, the answer always says he's a promoter of white nationalism/scientific racism/etc. If he sues a source for calling him a white nationalist, articles on the lawsuit will say, "White nationalist Stefan Molyneux is suing Newspaper X for calling him a white nationalist." - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm re-stressing the point that regardless of being a label or not things like "white nationalist" or "white supremacist" are ideological viewpoints similar to political affliation, and if you look across the board at any BIO/BLP involving people that would be notable for their ideological positions - normally sitting politicans - we do NOT include their ideology in the first sentence of the lede for the most part. It comes in the second sentence most of the time otherwise. Notability is important, but it cannot override neutrality and impartial language which are policy-mandated steps. Look at the example above I gave, where by the second sentence of the lede I've presented you still have all the same details. --Masem (t) 16:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem, sources:

• "A skilled propagandist and an effective communicator within the racist “alt-right” and pro-Trump ranks, his promotion of scientific racism and eugenics to a large and growing audience is a serious concern. Molyneux has been delivering “race realist” propaganda, based on pseudo-scientific sources, to his audience on an ongoing basis for over two years, and thus has encouraged thousands of people to adopt his belief in biological determinism, social Darwinism and non-white racial inferiority." https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/stefan-molyneux
• "YouTube on Monday terminated channels belonging to high-profile white supremacists Stefan Molyneux, Richard Spencer and David Duke" https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2020/06/29/youtube-bans-white-supremacists-stefan-molyneux-richard-spencer-david-duke/#44ba7bf65ff1 (Forbes staff, not a contributor blog)
• "On Monday, YouTube announced the bans of many popular white supremacists, including David Duke, Richard Spencer, and Stefan Molyneux." https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-bans-stefan-molyneux-hate-speech-david-duke-richard-spencer-2020-6?r=US&IR=T
• "Stefan Molyneux is a Canadian white nationalist activist known for his promotion of conspiracy theories. " https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53230986 (if the BBC says that as a statement of fact then we don't need to ATT at all)
• "Stefan Molyneux, a Canadian white nationalist who has been accused of promoting ‘scientific racism’, also had his account removed." https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/youtube-david-duke-richard-spencer-stefan-molyneux-removed-a9593051.html
• "Channels belonging to Canadian white nationalist activist Stefan Molyneux, US white supremacist Richard Spencer and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke were among the six taken down." https://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/national/18550682.youtube-bans-six-major-white-supremacist-channels/
• "The company deleted six channels: Richard Spencer‘s own channel and the affiliated channel for the National Policy Institute/Radix Journal, far right racist pseudo-science purveyor Stefan Molyneux, white supremacist outlet American Renaissance and affiliated channel AmRenPodcasts and white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke." https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/29/youtube-ban-stefan-molyneux-david-duke-white-nationalism/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMkgmS-hVRKlasTen4boYxFvWUjsVTECgkfJwhOZqieAc-iQnv3F3IjghT_t_PIH21N3_Q-BoIWc85osKvxB0MTvm6ZpCjF7dxfeabEL6yJndFCQWur77rZI7IcOL3H3ZkENrVfw39bPKhpQMzsasZC6BcBtUYXcaamdNl89BIO6

So. And incidentally, the reading Chroinicle is the print newspaper of a town in England (my home town, as it happens). They had to contextualise the ban for locals who don't know Molyneux. Guy (help!) 22:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia does not have the same role as the media. The media has no problem using labels directly; we do. The media - even the NYTimes - are not writing for neutrality, they are writing to inform and draw viewers, which nowadays incorporates the opinionated journalism model to make news more personable but neutrality be damned. (More so with Trump in play). Its how they also fight the Fox News bias, which started that far earlier than most. We're an encyclopedia, we're writing to inform, and to that we can't prejudge on our topics or try to convince our readers, especially since we do not have the benefit of years of hindsight analysis nor academic/scholarly review. We can lay out the case made by the media, making sure we're following DUE, and let the reader decide, but because we are first and foremost neutral, we have to make sure that media statements that tag labels onto people or groups need to be with attribution or some stance that takes that out of Wikivoice. It's not denying the labels or terms exists in sources, and in at least one case, self-identified by Molyneux himself, simply their presentation must be out of Wikivoice if its not self-identified. Properly written, we can still stay neutral and impartial in tone, but a reader of Molyneux's article should come out knowing the media/public opinion has generally considered him far-right/white nationalist/white supremacist. It's not that hard. --Masem (t) 23:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0—this "racist" slinging can go on in the sources but Wikipedia can and should pass it through an editorial filter. There are ways to handle reliably-sourced information more responsibly and less responsibly. You are opting for the less responsible way of presenting the sort of information that we are discussing. If a source employs hyperbole we should first identify the source in a sentence and only secondarily provide the reader with the possibly hyperbolic assertion. If we are not sure if it is hyperbole we should still opt for first identifying the source if the assertion is highly charged, such as when it involves racism. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Molyneux does not have a problem with white nationalism. He is notable because he is a white nationalist. (We label politicians based on the titles they hold because that is what they are notable for.) The idea that we should "filter out" what all of the sources say -- and the subject has no problem with -- because you feel there is something wrong with it means we should probably "filter" the part where we say label both Deep Throat and Stormy Daniels as "pornographic", if you feel there is something wrong with that.

I disagree with Molyneux. I disagree with Biblical literalists, young Earth creationists, LGBT "conversion" therapists and thousands of others. Nevertheless, they are who they are and they are verifiably who reliable sources repeatedly and regularly say they are. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

But of course I did not use the phrase "filter out" therefore you should not be using it in quotes as if it is attributable to me. You are going far afield with many of your references to politicians, biblical literalists, pornographic actors. I think we are discussing racism. I am saying that a more responsible and less sensationalist approach is to form sentences like According to Source A, Source B, and Source C, Molyneux is considered a white supremacist. Bus stop (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thus your preferred lead of "Stephan Molyneux is a Canadian podcaster and former YouTuber. SPLC says he is a propagandist for the racist alt-right. SPLC, Columbia Journalism Review, Data & Society Research Institute, The Guardian, and Palgrave Macmillan say he promotes scientific racism. SPLC says he promotes eugenics. SPLC says he uses pseudo-scientific sources. Data & Society Research Institute says he promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories. Palgrave Macmillan says his lectures are ill-researched and scientifically unsound. Politico Magazine and The Washington Post say he is alt-right. CNN says he is far right. CNN says his podcast is far right and frequently gives a platform to white nationalists. The New York Times says he promotes racist conspiracy theories. The New York Times says he is right wing. The New York Times says he is fixated on "race realism", a favored topic of white nationalists. The New York Times says he promotes white nationalists. The Independent says he has a perverse fixation on race and IQ. The Times and Channel 5 describe him as a cult leader. The Globe and Mail says he is often compared to a cult leader. The Daily Beast says his podcast is often compared to a cult." It doesn't seem like a summary to me. He's a far-right white supremacist podcaster deplatformed by Youtube. No one has been removing that as a BLP problem here because it is cited to death in the body of the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0—I didn't suggest a "preferred lead". It doesn't benefit the reader to cram subjects of articles into cubbyholes of "racism". Right now it is being discussed on this page whether an article should say people like Tucker Carlson or Charlie Kirk are "racists". "Racist" is a term used more and more frequently in sources and its meaning is becoming ever more diluted with the passage of time. As a smear tactic its use is de rigueur. In the lede it could say that it is alleged by some that they are racist. But in the body of the article our wording should be something like According to Source A, Source B, and Source C, they are considered... It is unenlightening to say simply someone is "racist". It is more enlightening to mention a few sources making this claim. Bus stop (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean, you can say that, but those sources also substantiate why Stefan Molyneux, specifically, is racist in a lot of cases, so... --Licks-rocks (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You say "those sources also substantiate why Stefan Molyneux, specifically, is racist in a lot of cases, so..." Then the substantiation should be included in the article. My argument is to include more information. The Molyneux article is uninformative while at the same time skewering Molyneux with racially-related labels. Bus stop (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Quoting just one of the sources in the article: "In his YouTube videos, Molyneux openly promotes scientific racism, advocates for the men's rights movement, critiques initiatives devoted to gender equity, and promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories focused on 'White Genocide' and 'The Great Replacement.'". Seems pretty clear cut to me. Just reading the things he has done that the current article deems noteworthy enough for inclusion is enough to substantiate the fact that he is racist. "skewering him with racially related labels" is something molyneux has done to himself. wikipedia merely records it. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Licks-rocks—that source is "Data & Society—Alternative Influence". It does not have a Wikipedia article. Why not? Nor is that source mentioned in the Molyneux article. Why not? Is it somehow problematic if someone "advocates for the men's rights movement"? Is it somehow problematic if someone "critiques initiatives devoted to gender equity"? Does our article substantiate that Molyneux "promotes scientific racism"? No, our article does not. Why not? If Molyneux "promotes scientific racism" why are no quotes provided of Molyneux promoting scientific racism? Does our article substantiate that Molyneux "promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories"? No, our article does not. Why not? If Molyneux "promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories" why are there no quotes provided of Molyneux promoting white supremacist conspiracy theories? The Molyneux article is uninformative while at the same time skewering Molyneux with racially-related labels. Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean, one could just watch his videos and find out, I suppose... Also what do you mean the source does not have a wikipedia article? It's a source! Also. The source most DEFINITELY substantiates that claim. I'm going to assume you overlooked the "download report" button on the page the source links to. I am also going to assume you missed the fact that this source is one of five supporting the sentence fragment "who is best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacist views.[4][5][6][7][8]". So that claim is actually more well-substantiated than any other claim on the Stefan Molyneux Wikipedia article._{actually on closer inspection there's one other line that has five different sources in the article but my point stands} --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Licks-rocks—you say "I'm going to assume you overlooked the 'download report' button on the page the source links to." The article is uninformative while at the same time skewering Molyneux with racially-related labels. To be informative the sentence should provide some indication that Molyneux is racist. Bald assertions are far less informative than some piece of evidence, most likely of a verbal form, of Molyneux's alleged racist leanings. Bus stop (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Francis Gurry

Posted again, after it was archived without having received any answer. --Edcolins (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Could somebody have a look at this edit? I have removed similar material quite a few times [15][16][17][18][19] over an extended period but did not manage to convince Torm65 (talk · contribs) that better sources are needed for such controversial material. In particular, IMHO, this source is insufficient (as further explained here). Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I removed it, broke down the sourcing issues at the article Talk page, and left a discretionary sanctions notice about the higher standard required for BLP content at that editor's Talk page. They're a SPA who's only ever edited that article, so we'll have to see what happens from here. Woodroar (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

And User:Torm65 reverted the removal almost immediately. Note that they've never once discussed any of these changes, either on the article Talk page or their own Talk. Woodroar (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

And this is now at ANI. Woodroar (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Blippi

Continued insertion of defamatory and pornographic content to the article by editor User:Tchaliburton contrary to editor consensus on talk page. Editor is ignoring WP:BRD in failing to discuss these changes. Editors previously removed this content as it is WP:UNDUE and was intentionally written to embarrass the subject of the bio. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Consensus can change. According to the talk page discussion, the initial concern was that the video was not actually Blippi.[20] Since it turned out it was him,[21] it then became an UNDUE question. Two editors cannot establish perpetual consensus. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Consensus changing or no, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE does not support linking a graphic, pornographic video of Stevin John defecating on someone else into the article, which this editor did. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a note for anyone else driving by, nobody seems to be inserting an actual pornographic video; they're using a link to a blog that contains the video as one of the footnoted references to the claim he was in such a video. The easiest way forward may be finding any other RS that does NOT contain the actual video, and linking it to substantiate the same facts? Mostcommonphraseongoogle (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

There are already sources in the article (Buzzfeed article) which mention this video and the link that was posted to the article DID originally point to the actual video online. Wikipedia is not a link repository for that kind of tasteless filth. I have watched this video and it's graphic and disgusting and a link to it has no place on Wikipedia and is WP:UNDUE. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. The main concern should be whether what is linked is a reliable source or satisfy copyright issues. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The link to the video is no longer active, and the website now says it has been blocked by the authorities. I don't consider a blog in Russia a reliable source, since that's where the video was originally hosted. Stevin John has been aggressively serving copyright infringement (DMCA) notices on anyone who is hosting the video. That being said, the video is still undue as per WP:BLP. Wikipedia is not xHamster.com or xvideos.com and is not a link farm for porno movies. I fully support free speech and non-censorship. That being said, a biography on Wikipedia is evaluated by other standards and criteria and claims of censorship don't really factor into the strict requirements of WP:BLP. There is a lot of content which is censored by wikipedia policy. Please don't play the censorship card, standards for materials in a biography must meet stringent criteria. This video does not meet those standards. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I asked you those specific questions because you also removed citations to Esquire and Newsweek and their associated text which puzzled me.[22] Your introducing the issue as being defamatory (which it is not) and pornographic also raised censorship concerns on my end. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are puzzled then go and read the discussion in the talk page archive. Consensus was to remove that content from the lead as it was WP:UNDUE. The rest of the removed content was intentionally written to embarrass and humiliate the subject of the bio. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I did read it as noted in the original response, and it didn't explain the removal of Esquire and Newsweek as sources. Why were they removed? Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

From one of the quoted sources the Esquire source - "In a 2013 interview, John said that the feces was real and true and stated, "I think it's funny. That’s the reason why I like shit in films and shit: 'cause shit is funny.". They were removed because they were undue, they are also being used to embarrass and humiliate the subject of the bio. A biography on wikipedia should provide all relevant information in a neutral manner, and at the same time respect the right of the subject of the bio to a balanced, neutral, well written and well sourced article which also respects their privacy rights. I think that quote is undue and portrays the subject of the bio in a false light. Consensus was to remove that source as undue. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Where was this consensus established? I'm trying to figure out how the Esquire is being used to embarrass him or portray him in a false light if he thinks that "shit is funny". Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

On the talk page. That content was originally removed by User:Crystallizedcarbon after he and I reviewed the article. I agree with the removal. If you cannot comprehend why such a quote is undue and doesn't belong in that article I am not certain how to help you understand it. It's clear you are just glossing over the content of the talk page discussion without understanding it. Put yourself in the position of Stevin John who would no doubt be embarrassed by such a quote. There is already ample coverage in the article of the Harlem Shake Poop video (There is an entire section dedicated to it under the subtitle "Steezy Grossman"). No doubt you will not be happy unless we post the harlem shake poop video to the article along with detailed blow by blow descriptions of the content, replete with quotes about how much Stevin John "likes shit". I am putting myself in the position of Stevin John and how he would feel about the article. False light invasion of privacy is a class of defamatory content, and even if it's true, does not mean it should be in that article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You are going to have to assume good faith and not speculate about my intentions. Editing on behalf of BLP concern is not all or nothing. Again, it's not clear from that discussion what the specific issue with Esquire is and how it flouts DUE or portrays it in a "false light". As I said before, two people can not establish a perpetual consensus. Truth is a defense against defamation in the United States so introducing the issue by throwing up incorrect legalese made your arguments suspect. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith or I would ignore your comments. I think you simply don't understand. Also, false light invasion of privacy refers to information which IS TRUE, but which portrays someone in a false light. Truth is not a defense against it. Go read up on it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

How does false light apply to a public figure like Blippi? We have another incident on this noticeboard where Esquire was challenged as being defamatory.[23] Hence, the suspicion on the removal in this instance. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not an attorney, and to what is or is not false light and how this applies to Blippi is a complex issue, and requires subjective analysis. My gut feeling says detailed coverage of the Harlem Shake Poop video is undue. I can tell you that the Blippi and Steezy Grossman titles are viewed by Stevin John as "characters" he portrays, and he does not view them as exclusively referring to the man named "Stevin John". By way of example, Oliver Jackson-Cohen, a famous actor, has played several film rolls as a gay man, even though he is not gay. Do we edit his article and post quotes from his movies stating that he is gay? Of course not. Stevin John views himself as an actor, and the blippi and steezy grossman characters as rolls he plays. Does this help you understand? Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

We may be arguing over the wrong thing. I just checked the Esquire link[24] and don't see any reference to a 2013 interview. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I do recall that quote from one of those sources, but I am also aware that the Buzzfeed article mentioned it as well, then the article was updated online after Stevin John's attorneys sent them a DMCA takedown notice and a nasty letter. If we allow the link to that video to be posted, they will probably just turn around and serve a DMCA takedown notice to Wikimedia Foundation, which has been Stevin John's attorneys pattern. The article in question may have already been modified online, so it's not your fault. I also have noticed in the article history that there may be paid editors visiting the article and attempting to remove cited consensus based content, which is why I asked the article be semi-protected. Both vandalism and attempted removal of cited content have been rampant with this article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The main fact is already included in the article. Steeze Grossman is mentioned in the lead and the pooping incident is included in the body. I don't think it belongs in the lead and I also agree that the excesive lewd details are undue. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk - BLP vio

Noncompliant material was restored in Turning Point USA. The material is a BLP violation, it is irrelevant to the article and noncompliant with WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. The attempt is to content smears Kirk via guilt by association. An administrator needs to take action to stop the editors removal of the BLP vio by the editors who keep restoring it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there some reason that you have accused me of trying to smear someone on a noticeboard, linking to an edit of mine, calling for admin action, without notifying me? You know that there is a lengthy, open RfC on this. O3000 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I was unexpectedly delayed, and hopefully I now have everything fixed at the article TP, and alerts properly made. Do you also need a DS alert for AP2? Rhetorical question, no need to answer, you're aware. You already know what BLP policy states, and I consider guilt by association using SYNTH a BLP violation despite the sources supporting irrelevant material. They don't support guilt by association. You knew when you restored that material that it was a BLP vio and that it was removed twice - 1st time here by Eruditess and restored by Nomoskedasticity. Then I removed the section and you restored it, claiming it was still under discussion. We don't discuss BLP violations - we remove them. You were aware of this edit by El C when he removed another BLP vio in that same article per the following edit summary: choosing to err on the side of caution with potential BLP violations). That RfC was opened June 19th, and the last comment was made June 27th, with the exception of my comments today while trying to get everything updated. The section title 2020 Presidential election has nothing to do with the content; then we have Turning Point USA, Turning Point Action and Students for Trump ALL legally separate entities until Turning Point Action purchased the assets of Students for Trump - but still a legally separate entity from Turning Point USA regardless of Charlie Kirk. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the attempt was to connect Kirk to Lambert and create guilt by association. It is very difficult to AGF with comments like this and this - clearly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:OWN and WP:OR. And the tone by Beyond My Ken has been far from dispassionate or collegial in a collaborative way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 17:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Mmm, help please with where the BLP vio is to this non-American. Kirk created a new group called Turning Point Action (which is obviously related to Turning Point USA) and did this by taking over Students for Trump, and if you look at the article for that group, it makes it clear that Kirk took it over, and it makes it clear that Kirk took it over after the previous characters ended up in legal issues. Are you saying that the reference to Fournier and Lambert in the Turning Point USA article is an issue, and if so how woiuld you word it? Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, Black Kite, that would probably skirt WP:OR. Turning Point Action is a 501(c)(4), and Turning Point USA is a 501(c)(3). There is a big difference legally between the two, and what they are allowed to do. We cannot/should not conflate the two which would be an embarrassment to the encyclopedia. If there was a BLP for Charlie Kirk, then he can be listed as founder or organizer of those non-profits, as long as we state the facts. I'm sure there is going to be bias in how these article will be treated but our job is to leave our biases at login - not an easy task, but what we must do. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Do not tell me what I think.
• That it is a BLP vio is your opinion. The RfC statement said nothing about BLP.
• This is the second time you brought this here.[25]. You did not get a ruling that there was any BLP vio then and are trying again.
• The RfC is still open.
• El C's revert was unrelated. As far as I can see, El C has not removed this long standing text.
• You didn't answer my question. O3000 (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Nobody's telling you what you think. I see what the edits tell me.
• It is a BLP vio, not an opinion and I provided the diffs that support what I say. Yes, the RfC statement said nothing about it, and that's the problem.
• Wrong - get your facts straight. The first time was about this removal and this revert of a BLP vio. El C removed it again. The material is no longer in the article, and it should not be.
• The RfC is still open after nearly 30 days of ignoring the obvious consensus? Got WP:STONEWALLING?
• El C's revert was related to that BLP vio, not to this second BLP vio. Re-read, and be better informed.
• Your actions answer your own question.
• You would be wise to revert your edit and focus on the BLP vio, SYNTH and NPOV issues, Forgive me, but I couldn't care less about the politics here - my focus is on credibility and how our readers view our articles; therefore, adherence to BLP, NPOV and NOR are paramount. We have enough criticism in mainstream media about NPOV issues, and scrubbing articles to favor a certain political party. The Intercept, WSJ, Slate, Medium, Nature, University of Warwick, MIT, and on and on. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You would be wise to strike your PAs, in the first post claiming I was attempting to smear someone, and the second post claiming I knew my edit to be a BLP vio. Both are false accusations. As for further discussion, there was already lengthy discussion when you brought this here the first time. And the links you just posted are completely irrelevant. O3000 (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You violated BLP and now you're trying to make it personal against me? Provide diff of PAs as I did in my comments. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

After linking to an edit of mine, you stated: The attempt is to smear Kirk via guilt by association. The second: You knew when you restored that material that it was a BLP vio The Pas are in this thread. These are false accusations. And I have NOT violated BLP. You are the one that has been making this personal from the beginning of the thread. O3000 (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

That's what you consider PAs, but you don't see a BLP vio? Regardless of whether it was intentional or otherwise, the BLP vio is obvious. What I care about is strict adherence to BLP policy - that's our job. The paragraph states In May 2019, Kirk created a new 501(c)(4) organization, a political action committee intended to target Democrats, called Turning Point Action, which purchased the assets of Students for Trump. It goes on to explain who founded Students for Trump, and that Lambert was one of the founders, that he left the organization and pleaded guilty to felonies and faces prison time. The paragraph ends with After Lambert's arrest in April, Students for Trump distanced themselves from him. It doesn't end with Turning Point Action distanced themselves, or that Kirk distanced himself, or that Turning Point USA distanced themselves - no. If the article is about Turning Point USA, why is that paragraph even included, and what does it have to do with the election if not to imply "guilt by association" in an attempt to smear the political opposition? It was not warranted criticism about Turning Point USA cited to a high quality RS - no, it was designed to discredit Turning Point USA and Turning Point Action and Charlie Kirk who heads up the two entities. That is what the paragraph implies. Convince me otherwise, please. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

AGAIN, you accused me of attempting to smear someone. You then claimed that I knew it was a BLP vio, a falsehood. These are personal attacks whether or not it is a BLP vio. I have never attempted to smear anyone and have never attempted to violate BLP. All I did was restore text under RfC discussion. O3000 (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It's been a month since the RFC has been started, and it should be closed by an admin. Further the BLP concerns can be removed without removing the entire section per WP:ONUS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I would think since the text has been around for quite some time; onus would be on removal, particularly since there is an active RfC. You can request closure at [26]. O3000 (talk)

You think wrong. WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Consensus is not established by how long the material has been there. It's clear that part of this material is disputed. The fact that there is an RFC discussion does not sidestep the removal. When consensus is established from the RFC to include, then the material can be reinstated. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is incorrect in this case. Standard practice has always been that longstanding material is presumed to enjoy consensus, and (with obviously-relevant exception of clear-cut WP:BLP violations) a consensus must be demonstrated to remove longstanding text. See WP:QUO and WP:NOCON - when there is no consensus (outside of BLP concerns), the standard is to retain the existing text, not to remove it. I find it baffling that longstanding editors could be unfamiliar with that. --Aquillion (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOCON says In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it. (bold added as most relevant). Schazjmd (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

For the record here, WP:ONUS does apply because the material was challenged as a WP:BLP vio, and probably also applies to WP:BLPGROUP, all of which is further reinforced by WP:GUILT, an ArbCom principle that clearly states: Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties. Consensus also confirms agreement by the participants that the text as originally proposed did not comply with multiple policies when evaluated as a whole. The reason the material was challenged and removed is stated in the edit summary: (→‎2020 Presidential election: Remove BLP violation per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi#Guilt by association) If further clarity is needed about the content that was juxtaposed in the paragraph to create "guilt by association", I suggest opening a case at ARCA. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It was challenged by an editor known for challenging material that went against their political views. That editor than violated WP:PA and WP:AGF three times, making false accusations and asking for admin action on two pages with no notification against the accused. and was cautioned on their TP by an admin. Are you sure you want this to go to ARCA? Particularly since this is all settled.. What is your goal here? O3000 (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• OK, this is out of hand, Morbidthoughts, Atsme, and Eruditess have all three removed text under an unclosed RfC discussion despite the fact that all three took part in the RfC. This is not the correct process here. O3000 (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • These aggressive tactics need to be countered by aggressive tactics. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

  BLP takes precedence over an RfC in progress. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

  In addition, BLP demands that "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

There was a discussion last month here on this very subject. There is no consensus that there is a BLP vio after a great deal of discussion both here and on the article talk page. O3000 (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

There was no consensus for inclusion reached in that discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it was a completely different discussion and different BLP vio. El C removed the material that Nomo & BMK had replaced when it was challenged as a BLP vio - not unlike what is happening now. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

We should not be engaging in BLP violations, regardless of an RfC being open. Doesn't matter who put it in. Just be the better editor and remove. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus that this is a BLP vio, regardless of Atsme's personal attacks. Just be the better editor and follow WP process. O3000 (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

WP Process is to remove BLP violations. If there is disagreement then leave it out until there is consensus to include, whether that be locally, from an RfC, a third opinion, or dispute resolution. Personal attacks like those from Djln, or any other editor, such as those here and here should be avoided. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

No idea why you are bringing up unrelated personal attacks. I am talking about two leveled by Atsme in her first post in this thread, not only making false accusations on a noticeboard, but not informing. As for removal, Atsme removed a great deal of text; most of which is nothing like a BLP vio. O3000 (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You need to focus on the BLP vio you restored, and try to understand why it is a BLP vio because that is all I've been discussing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Declaring yourself correct and making false accusations against others does not convince. O3000 (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

How about someone explain the alleged BLP violation and that can be discussed separately from the rest of the content removed. It seems like there are two separate but linked issues being discussed here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

And now, as you've seen, we have an editor with five edits removing more material. O3000 (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

OMG, time for popcorn while we watch the mud-slinging! Anyways, quick outside opinion, I would tend to agree that the OP's diff link does look like a heavy-handed attempt to discuss somebody named "Lambert" in an article that is not about somebody named "Lambert". Also a technical note, BLP and RFC are parallel processes, but while theoretically BLP should be more urgent and treated as such (but in practice sadly is not, as this noticeboard shows) - this is about an article named "Turning Point USA", so does not necessarily meet BLP criteria (that said, of course LPs have rights outside their own biographies; but that's not strictly the use of BLP) Mostcommonphraseongoogle (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

BLP applies to any biographical content of a living person, no matter where on Wikipedia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, but in this case there is no question that the material is factually accurate, and external sources mention it in the context of TPUSA and Kirk, so there is no BLP violation (and this is not the first time Atsme has raised exactly this assertion and failed to get consensus for her idiosyncratic interpretatiuon of BLP).

To be clear: Atsme ios allowed not to like that content. She is allowed to argue for its removal via the usual arguments we make for inclusion or exclusion of material. But to continue to insist that only her version is acceptable and that inclusion is a BLP violation is, by this point, disruptive: it's well over a month since she started this WP:CRYBLP campaign, this is her second trip here with it, and as far as I can tell she has not modified her absolutist position at all, despite numerous experienced and independent editors pointing out to her that there is no apparent violation. Guy (help!) 07:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, there are a series of recent edits before protection that inserted original research and editorializing in a distorted attempt at NPOV.[27] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The material about the financial crime is absolutely UNDUE for the article. I agree with the BLP problem with respect to guilt by association. It's not a bright line violation in my eyes but the concern is legitimate. However, even if there were no BLP concerns the material is clearly UNDUE and comes off as a coatrack. Springee (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

There's just no BLP violation here. For the purposes of this board, that's what matters. There's a weight argument, there's edit warring going on, there are procedural issues, there are even some copyvio concerns that have come up along the way ... but not BLP. Ultimately the outcome of the RfC is fairly clear at this point. Include the first part, and not the last part. Let's just implement that, block the SPA that's over 3RR, trout for the WP:CRYBLPing, lots of trouts for edit warring over RfC-pending material, and let's move on. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with every word. O3000 (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I have made a WP:NAC of the discussion. Full reasoning both for taking this action and for the basis of the close is explained in detail in the close itself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is a case of WP:CRYBLP (and indeed WP:STICK). When Atsme says "noncompliant material was restored", she "forgot" to mention that she deleted it and was reverted, or that her idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:BLP does not have consensus, after extensive discussion. The events are widely reported, if Atsme chooses to read this as an accusation in Wikipedia voice of campaign finance fruad then that's her problem not ours. Guy (help!) 21:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Why, because my position aligned with consensus and yours did not? Déjà vu! WP:STICK indeed, and I'll add WP:BULLY. Your words were hurtful, Guy, and totally unwarranted. It looks to me like your purpose here now is not to move along and allow this discussion to end; rather, it looks more like you're here to rally your team against me. What exactly do you mean "that's her problem not ours"? Why are you isolationg me from "ours"? Who is "ours", Guy? If you and "ours" are unable to recognize blatant BLP vios, that is a project-wide problem, and not mine alone. Refresh your memory:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.

And don't forget WP:GUILT the next time you want to debate keeping unfounded allegations of racism in an article where it doesn't belong or you think it's ok to juxtapose a guilty plea by Mr A with an intro to Ms B. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 07:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, no, because your position didn't align with consensus. There is no BLP violation, regardless of how often and how dogmatically you assert the contrary. Here's what I said a month ago, when you raised this before:

The contention that Kirk is an "all lives matter" troll is trivially proved by reference to his Twitter feed.

I am not calling him racist. I am calling him Trump-train "all lives matter" radical right. That doesn't mean racist. It does mean sufficiently unconcerned about racism to make comments like "all lives matter" when it's the Black people who are being killed by police.

Trump is not racist either, in my view. He is just fine with racism when it's to his benefit - whether that is excluding black tenants so white people will pay higher rent, or pursuing a white nationalist immigration policy. I think he is genuinely puzzled that comments like "shithole countries" attract opprobrium. America is on fire, and Trump decides that it would be a great idea to threaten long jail sentences for pulling down statues of traitors erected in the 20th Century by racists pushing back at black equality. I don't think he's a racist, but the racists certainly do.

I do think that Charlie Kirk, friend of the Trump family and vociferous Trump booster, is smarter and has a much wider exposure to differing views. It is vastly harder for him to plausibly argue that he genuinely thinks "all lives matter" is an appropriate response to "black lives matter". But the most likely explanation is not actual racism on his part, but that racism is less important to him than tribal point-scoring.

To pretend that Charlie Kirk is anything other than completely cool with racism from his "tribe", based on his recent tweets, is wilful denialism.

• "If Black Lives mattered to Planned Parenthood, why would they position 70% of their abortion clinics in predominantly African-American communities?" [28]
• "If black lives mattered to Black Lives Matter, they would be protesting outside of Planned Parenthood not trying to tear down statues of Abraham Lincoln" [29]
• "Planned Parenthood is more systemically racist than any other "institution" in America" [30]
• "The European Union is putting travel restrictions on all Americans. Will the media call the EU racist for protecting their continent?" [31]
• this arm-waving denial of systemic racism.

Again,. I am not calling him racist. I am saying that if you want to remove any mention of his involvement in racially charged statements, you have a hill to climb on NPOV grounds.

Nothing has changed. It's exactly the same with Tucker Carlson. These are prominent radical right figures whose response to protests over the killing of Black people is to downplay them, the "all lives matter" approach. Some sources conclude that this indicates racism on the part of Kirk and Carlson. My view is that this is not racism, it's about creating a culture where it's fine to say the quiet part out loud. Guy (help!) 07:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG—aren't you being ludicrously biased? Their response to "the killing of Black people is to downplay them"? It is laughable that you could say that on a Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, I'm curious, have you read a newspaper since May 25? I'd think it would take less than eight minutes and forty-six seconds to work out that Black Lives Matter is about Black people being killed by police, and that "all lives matter" and (even worse) "blue lives matter" are specifically designed to dismiss and trivialise this.

"If black lives mattered to Black Lives Matter, they would be protesting outside of Planned Parenthood" casts BLM in the light of the hyper-privileged mindset of anti-abortion activism. It's grotesque. Guy (help!) 21:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, ludicrous in what manner? Isn’t this obvious? The slogan “Black lives matter” to anyone who understands English grammar, means that they matter too; as everyone already knows that white lives matter. The fact that some folk counter with “all lives matter” as a response to ‘black lives matter” is an attempt to belittle a centuries old problem that doesn’t appear to matter in some quarters. It’s a slogan. Slogans are brief. You can’t explain details in a sign. Did Rousseau actually suggest that people will eat the rich (“mangeront les riches”)? And comparing this to Planned Parenthood doesn’t belong anywhere near a Wikipedia discussion. O3000 (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

What is the "the hyper-privileged mindset of anti-abortion activism" to which you refer, JzG? Isn't abortion a question that depends mostly on one's view of the morality of that medical procedure rather than a question that depends on how "privileged" or "unprivileged" a person might be? Bus stop (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

They are privileged because they were not aborted, so therefore they can be activists. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I doubt the reference is to the "privilege" of being alive. More likely the reference is to the concept of social privilege or some variant of that or some related concept. Except for the Grateful Dead most of us take life for granted. Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, anti-abortion activism comes from privilege. In much of the world, safe, legal abortions are unavailable either because of theocratic government or lack of healthcare. And as practised in America, it is almost entirely about controlling women. To place anti-abortionism, as Kirk does, above the murder of Black Americans by police, is grotesque. Kirk opposes the death penalty but only because it is more expensive than life in prison. He doesn't seem to care very much about non-privileged lives. Guy (help!) 21:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG—from where do you derive that Kirk "place[s] anti-abortionism...above the murder of Black Americans by police"? Bus stop (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Karlie Kloss and Tavi Gevinson

• Karlie Kloss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Karlie_Kloss#Political_views
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Karlie_Kloss

Kloss is a model, married to the brother of Jared Kushner. Like most articles on models, there is excessive detail. Like other articles on the Trump family, there are lots of poor sources to draw from if we choose to do so.

There are a few sentences in dispute:

Project Runway clip, added to the "2011–present: Recognition and success" section:

A clip from an episode of Project Runway in which contestant Tyler Neasloney brought up Kloss' ties to the Kushner family went viral in January 2020. In the clip, Neasloney questioned whether Kloss would wear his dress "to dinner with the Kushners". Kloss discussed the viral clip on Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen, stating that she "honored to be one of the first memes of the decade".

References

BLM Instagram post, added to the "Personal life" section:

Kloss posted on Instagram in support of the Black Lives Matter movement in May 2020, stating that people should combat bigotry and bias "by having the first conversation at your own kitchen table." This was criticized by commentators in light of Kloss' own family ties, with writer Tavi Gevinson accusing Kloss of trying to "have it both ways"."

References

From my perspective, this is all trivia that doesn't deserve mention per NOT and POV, the BLM bit being especially poor. Others' viewpoints would be appreciated. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

They don't seem important in the grand scheme of things, but multiple reliable sources are covering these tidbits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

For the BLM bit, we have poor and unreliable sources. For the rest, we've NOTNEWS and UNDUE detail. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You have to look at why diverse but high quality sources like Vanity Fair and the LA Times would cover the incident before waving the NOTNEWS and UNDUE flag. The BLM dispute was also covered by the Evening Standard[32] and Town & Country (magazine).[33] Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I already did. She's a model. She has a relationship to the Trump family. The better publishers are competing with clickbait.

Thanks for the additional refs. They read too much like gossip columns to me.

You didn't address UNDUE. Maybe trim it each to a single sentence as a start?

In both cases, these are simply snipes at Kloss because of her relationship to the Trump family. There's no substance beyond that. We already have a paragraph on being criticized for this relationship. Why are we padding on? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources like Vanity Fair and LA Times are looking for any material to give them 24/7 relevance in the world today. Just because they happen to cover social media "faux pas" does not mean we should cover it. If its an issue covered by multiple RSes as to make to DUE for inclusion, then yes, but just point out a couple articles that address some issue on social media is not appropriate. Our BLP articles, particularly with those with ties to Trump, cannot be just a laundry list of these, we need more more discretion in such articles. --Masem (t) 16:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Well said Masem. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem, yup, sure looks that way. Guy (help!) 21:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Determining substance is subjective, Hipal. I would rather let high quality reliable sources determine that rather than editors substituting their own ala WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What you see as mere swipes, I see as her relationship impacting her work and inviting criticism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I see as her relationship impacting her work and inviting criticism. And what high quality sources verify that? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

What? Vanity Fair and LA Times are not good enough for you? How about USA Today[34] or the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette[35]? Maybe The Guardian[36] or The Daily Beast[37]? Vulture is part of New York (magazine) Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I'm asking for what sources specifically verify the perspective you've presented, that there's some impact on her work. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Those links show how her relationship with the Kushners is impacting her work (as host of Project Runway) and invite criticism on her advocacy. It's not a stretch. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like that's "not without syn". --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't inserted any language for you to be screaming SYN. I'm perfectly fine letting the reader infer whatever they want to infer. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

If it's not verifiable, it's of no help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No help for what? I'm not trying to convince you, but you're not making sense either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, sorry for any confusion. I'm looking for any verifiable info meeting BLP requirements that demonstrates my opening comments to this discussion are overlooking something. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You keep shifting the goalposts Hipal, First you say the sources aren't good and then when better sources are provided you say the information is not relevant.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You keep shifting the goalposts Absolute nonsense. My concerns have always been for NOT and POV problems: at the article, at the article talk page, and here. I'm looking for sources that might alleviate those problems. You're not going to get consensus this way. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The sources are good, You have refused to add the information back because, In your words "we already have a paragraph in the article on her being criticized for being related to the Trump family by marriage. Why are we expanding with examples?",, "Not all verifiable information is encyclopedic or worth mention." and "Thanks for providing better sources, but it's still trivia". Which means that no matter what you will always be against the information being added to the article. A consensus has already be reached by me, Proudandbeautiful, Trillfendi and Morbidthoughts for the info to be added back.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see any policy-based arguments in your response. Ignoring, misrepresenting, or attacking others is not how to create consensus. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

That's funny, But Los Angeles Times, Vanity Fair, USA Today and The Guardian are reliable sources. You don't have any sources to offer contradicting them.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point, or don't care to. You can't build consensus from ignorance. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"the better sources are competing with clickbait" what's your evidence for this claim. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:CAPTAINOBVIOUS. Any awareness at all of the current media environment substantiates this claim as broadly true for any celebrity or politician article you wish to name. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like this is all promotion for Tavi Gevinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I hadn't noticed the spillover previously [38]. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion, nor squabbles from celebrities. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bullcrap, Neither i nor Proud have any ties to Tavi. This gaslighting is possibly because you have been accused by other users of working with Karlie Kloss.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You're banned from the articles. Please respect that ban. Bad faith comments like this will get you blocked. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

John Ratcliffe

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.

---

Your article on John Ratcliffe, retired congressman from Texas and President Trump's new Director of National Intelligence, is one of the worst biographies I've yet read on your website. I've complained before about how so many of your articles present liberal Democrats in absolute puff pieces that make them sound as if they walk on water and trashes Republicans in the most biased and unfair manner. For example, your article on Robert Mueller made him sound like a paragon of virtue whose resume was impeccable. We learned much the opposite after the "Russian collusion" investigation was concluded. Another article presents Dr. Fauci as beyond reproach, but anyone with any degree of science in their background understands that he is nothing but a Democratic Party functionary. His assertion that everyone should be made to wear face coverings in public is absurd. The best face mask, the vaunted N95 mask, filters particles down to .3 microns and larger. The covid19 virus particle is a mere .12 microns in size, hence too small to be filtered out and blocked by the best mask available. Yet mask wearing is being mandated across the country by scientifically uninformed governors, mayors, and doctors, with Fauci and the CDC in command of the whole sorry mess.
I was most impressed with John Ratcliffe in his questioning of a Mr. Holmes of the State Department during the House inquiry about impeaching President Trump, which is not even mentioned in your article. Holmes really didn't know much of anything about the matter in question, a phone call to the ambassador to Ukraine that he overheard from a distance, stating that Trump was yelling at the ambassador. After the questions, Ratcliffe paused, looked at his notes, and merely looked up at Holmes for a few seconds. It was a devastating look and it completely discombobulated Holmes. It said in a second, "You're a damn liar and I know you're a liar and you know I know and what kind of a state department do you think we should be running where a shitass like you can get away with running down your boss like this and be believed? How stupid do you think we are?" There were several very effective Republican Congressman in those hearings, in stark contrast to their immature, dishonest, sleazy Democratic counterparts. None of that is mentioned in your completely biased article supposedly informing me of what sort of man John Ratcliffe really is. You totally blew another one. Who are you people to allow one side of the political divide to dictate to you what appears in your articles? You asked me for money one time because I reprinted several of your articles in a political newsgroup. The problem is, there is so much misinformation and bias in your stuff that it requires commentary to go with it. There is so much bs in your Ratcliffe bio that I won't reprint it. I simply do not have the time to spend correcting all the misinformation and bias you always include in your stuff, of which you are so proud. Yes, I know you contend you have nothing to do with it, then why the heck don't you police what is written and stop Democratic National Committee bsers from ruining your articles without fail??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.4.196 (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The reason masks work is because viruses can't survive outside the body without much larger droplets as life supportLicks-rocks (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I belive the reference is to John Ratcliffe (American politician) but correct me if I am wrong. Bus stop (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2020 (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.

Tucker Carlson

The Tucker Carlson wikipedia article currently asserts that "CNN, Business Insider, Vox, and GQ, have claimed that Carlson's show has promoted and echoed white supremacist discourse." AFAICT, the cited sources do not support this statement. This appears to be (in part) an instance of the Association fallacy and (in part) an unfair characterization of the routine discourse of a political commentator and interviewer. Regardless, the article seems to me to be libelous and inconsistent with WP:BLP. I invite comments and suggestions. Sbelknap (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• CNN: "Media Matters and other outspoken Trump critics have accused him of promoting white nationalist ideas, a charge he has repeatedly rejected."
• Business Insider: "Carlson, who has been accused of promoting a host of white nationalist talking points"
• GQ: "But that doesn't change the fact that Carlson is making a thoroughly racist, white nationalist argument for an ethnically pure America."
• Vox: "Carlson has faced accusations of catering to white nationalism on his show before..."

So yeah. It looks like there's a problem. Only GQ makes a direct claim. The others say he is accused by critics of doing so. Further, BI should be eliminated as a source given its standing at WP:RSP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

There are other sources available that make a direct claim though:

• The Nation: "These writers naturally end up in Carlson’s orbit, since both the Caller and Carlson’s show promote white nationalism..."
• Salon: "Of all the Fox News personalities who harp on immigration, he is the one with the most sophisticated white nationalist ideology."

Seems like a matter of changing out the attribution. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment We need to look at the sources and what they are claiming.
  • CNN is considered a reliable source by the community and states matter of factly that Carlson has been accused of being racist by Trump critics and he has strongly denied those accusations. I don't see this as in any way controversial and it has certainly been repeated elsewhere.
  • There is no community consensus on BI as a reliable source. I would treat highly negative claims touching on a BLP from this source as dubious.
  • GQ has not been greatly discussed at RSN, but I have doubts about their standing as a reliable source. In any case the piece being quoted looks like an op-ed. I would not consider this an acceptable source for these kinds of claims.
  • VOX is a reliable, though partisan, source. And I don't see the quote there as being much out of line with what CNN. is claiming.
  • The Nation is a highly partisan (and in this case hostile) source, though often considered reliable. But again this reads like an op-ed piece, not a straight news story. Op-ed pieces are rarely considered an acceptable source for highly contentious BLP claims.
  • Salon is not universally accepted as a reliable source by the community. It is also known to be highly partisan and hostile to Carlson. And the piece in question again reads like an op-ed as opposed to a straight news story. I would not be inclined to accept it as a RS for these kinds of claims.

My overall take is that there is solid sourcing for stating that Carlson has been accused of being a racist, and he has denied the claims. But I don't consider anything beyond that to be adequately sourced for making highly negative claims in a BLP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, correct - and also his racist writer. Guy (help!) 22:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, op-eds are reliable for stating their opinions, and these contentious labels are subjective opinions. That's why they were explicitly attributed as "claimed". I do prefer neutral third-party coverage of these labels though where possible and agree with your direction. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

CNN phrases it best: "Media Matters and other outspoken Trump critics have accused him of promoting white nationalist ideas, a charge he has repeatedly rejected." It says where the criticism comes from. Bear in mind that news media do not have the competence to determine whether or not someone is promoting white nationalism, but merely report what expert sources say. In order for the article to make the claim, we would need expert sources that say there is an academic consensus on this. It would be helpful too to explain why these critics believe this. TFD (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

No disagreement with the above (impeccability of sourcing), but the issue the phrasing in our article appears to say "white supremacist" when the sources all support "white nationalist". Ideas are close but not the same, and our wording should be "nationalist" instead. --Masem (t) 23:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I had done the control-find on nationalism to pull up those quotes. There are sources that acknowledge accusations of him of either being a supremacist or pandering to white supremacy, including CNN.[39][40][41] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem, to make sure we're on the same page - any contentious material must strictly adhere to BLP policy, and must be attributed, not stated in WikiVoice. It must also be verifiable in/cited to multiple high quality RS per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I don't consider Carlson's competitors to be high quality sources - they have a COI. I also don't consider professional advocacies to be high quality sources in a similar context - they are biased for their cause and also have an oblique COI, even if their hearts are in the right place. That leaves us with academic & scientific sources, and books written by credible authors, published by high quality publishers. DUE is another significant consideration here. White supremacy is not new to the world - it is the ugliest of ugly but labeling people is not the answer. WTH are we doing? It's not our job to label, expose, advocate for/against, or condemn the BLPs and biographies that comprise our encyclopedia. Who draws the line for what is or isn't racist? We're seeing that indecision and divisiveness now with the Biden article. One side says his comments are racist, and the other side says they're not. Those are judgment calls and we do not have any authority to make such a determination about a BLP, much less decide among ourselves what is or isn't racist. We cite what RS say, nothing more, and we don't have to include everything they say. That's called being good editors. We're dealing with WP:RECENTISM, RS issues, REDFLAG, LABEL, NPOV, V & BLP issues - where's the line and who drew it? Some of the relatively recent etymological annihilation of words like nationalism have found their way into identity politics and are serving a political purpose as described by ABC News and CNN. In fact, while I was researching for more sources to cite here, I came across this brilliant piece of opinion journalism penned by Keith Woods, Chief Diversity Officer at NPR. Please read it. He mirrors my beliefs and what I've been trying to relay, with one exception...he gets paid to write it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have not looked at any other specific language used, and I would assume that as these are labels they are appropriate attributed or given implications of being non-factual states (eg "Many media pundants consider Carlson's show to be a platform for white supremacy."). That doesn't seem to be the issue of this BLPN question at this point. --Masem (t) 23:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I added some studies to the Carlson article, which are better sources.[42] One study specifically says Carlson has "repeated white supremacist talking points" on his show.[43] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The "talking points" in the cited source were that white supremacy is a hoax. That is *not* "promoting white supremacy." Removed. Sbelknap (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The study literally says Carlson has "repeated white supremacist talking points". Your personal opinion as to whether the study is correct is irrelevant. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Why not use the actual statement and not the abstract description of the actual statement? That would be in keeping with WP:BLP. As it stands, this text is misleading and libelous. Sbelknap (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, you are kidding, right? "Antisemitism is a hoax" is an antisemitic statement, "Racism is a hoax" is a racist statement, and "White supremacism is a hoax" is a white supremacist statement. Guy (help!) 10:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Prime Florida real estate

Please advise regarding this text, Isn't this an instance of the Association fallacy? Heidi Beirich, of the Southern Poverty Law Center, said that "Carlson probably has been the No. 1 commentator mainstreaming bedrock principles of white nationalism in [the US]," and accused him of promoting the white genocide conspiracy theory, the idea that white people are under attack by minorities and immigrants.[44] Sbelknap (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a direct accusation to me; cited to an independent source from the SPLC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, no it's not the association fallacy. His main writer turns out to have been an active white supremacist. The most charitable explanation is that Carlson didn't realise he was reading out racist talking points (and was not made aware of the glowing plaudits from the likes of David Duke and Andrew Anglin).

And if you believe that, I have some prime Florida real estate you might be interested in. Guy (help!) 21:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy, what is the single best example you can provide of a racist talking point that you allege Carlson was reading out? Sbelknap (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, have you read WP:OR? This is about what reliable independent sources say. And what they say is that regardless of whether Tucker Carlson thinks he's a racist, the racists sure as hell do. Guy (help!) 07:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

For whatever reason, Guy, you didn't answer the question posed. You are free to do that, of course. I asked for the best example you can provide of a racist talking point that Carlson has read out. AFAICT, you were unable to provide *any* example. Sbelknap (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, see WP:OR. It's not about what I consider to be a white supremacist talking point, it's about what RS do. Guy (help!) 08:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

We agree on that. Indeed, it is *not* about what you consider to be a white supremacist talking point. Instead, it is about what the RS considers a white supremacist talking point. The sources you cite do not mention any specific talking point, they instead speak in abstractions and generalities, as is typical for empty slander, and that is not adequate for WP:BLP. Sbelknap (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

regardless of whether Tucker Carlson thinks he's a racist yeah, bit of a Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Sbelknap that "they...speak in abstractions and generalities". Bus stop (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I would try to avoid using the SPLC here (or at least, the sole source), this is a case of a source that has an absolutely known bias in this area. I have not checked but would not be surprised if SPLC has Carlson on one of their "hate group" lists and noting that would be appropriate, but further documentation of white nationalist/white supremacist should be coming from the more mainstream sources (which probably can be done easily) --Masem (t) 22:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The issue is more at what point does SPLC's opinion become DUE when reported by independent sources rather than trying to assert the label as fact. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

For example, the Washington Post[45] quotes Beirich ripping Carlson in a different quote, "“Tucker Carlson has become our hate mainstreamer in chief... He seems to be picking up the thinking of the white supremacist movement in the United States and expressing it in very harsh terms.... This isn’t a dog whistle. This is just a blatant repeating of white supremacist ideas." Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing where this is going so throwing a caution flag here - we clearly want go get the point across that many in the press see Carlson's show - and Carlson by implication - as a leading platform to promote white nationalism and white supremacy, but we want to make sure that's covered neutrally and in the right tone. The quote is a bit off on a first blush, before checking sources. That said, I see Beirich quoted several times in relationship to talking about Carlson and these points, so I think it seems appropriate to use one of those statements (you don't have to use the SPLC article directly) to establish that the media has looked to the SPLC and the SPLC has this to say about Carlson, making it DUE. It would be different if you were just adding the SPLC and no one mentioned them in context of Carlson before. Regardless, just watch what you quote, if you quote. We're not going to find a "nice" quote, but we should avoid quotes that are just outright inflamatory for purposes of being that way. There seem to be more level headed but still critical ones around so this shouldn't be a problem. --Masem (t) 23:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

And that labeling is driving more viewers to tune-in to Carlson's show so they can judge for themselves. Viewer curiosity raises the ratings - marketing 101 - and when a percentage of those viewers decide that he's not what his detractors described him to be, they will stay hooked...and that is how a network becomes the most watched cable news program in America. smh ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, not our concern, but in any case rather silly: Fox already is already the most watched, because it reliably allows conservatives to look at an endless stream of identikit blondes while avoiding cognitive dissonance. Guy (help!) 07:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd say Carlson has more brown than blonde. Maybe you need a better quality TV. This young lady, who we are currently deleting, is also a brunette. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem, yes, that is exactly correct. We cover the allegations without throwing the weight of Wikipedia's voice behind them. We do that because the allegations, while credible, are all couched as opinion.

By contrast, sources unambiguously identify Stefan Molyneux as a white nationalist, as a statement of fact (e.g. "Stefan Molyneux is a Canadian white nationalist activist known for his promotion of conspiracy theories" - BBC News).

We follow the sources. Molyneux is a white nationalist, Carlson amplifies white supremacist talking points. We can say Molyneux is a racist because RS say exactly that, we can't say Carlson is a racist because they don't - but we can point out that racists say he's one of them, because RS do say exactly that. Guy (help!) 10:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG—if we wished to "cover the allegations without throwing the weight of Wikipedia's voice behind them" we would construct our sentences in the following manner: According to the Southern Poverty Law Center Molyneux "amplifies 'scientific racism,' eugenics and white supremacism". Notice that in this hypothetical example I've concocted, the source of the allegation precedes the charge of for instance racism. Labels should be used responsibly by Wikipedia. This is not the suppression of information. The reader benefits from having the source of the charge of racism in the very sentence alleging racism. This presentation should be prominent. The source of the charge should be prominently displayed in the sentence. In-line attribution allows for this. The same should apply to Tucker Carlson: we should construct the sentence so the origin of the allegation precedes the allegation. Racism and related concepts should generally be treated in this manner. Bus stop (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, It's not just SPLC though, is it? I mean, I am fine with use of attribution, but there are a lot of sources saying it. Guy (help!) 08:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The aim is to be informative. State the source, state the reason that they apply the label, state the label. I concede that it is more cumbersome. But it is more informative. The reader learns little from racially-oriented labels. Sources serve at least 2 purposes. Sources serve to support assertions. And sources reveal their own biases. Thus when we say The Southern Poverty Law Center labels Molyneux a racist, we are also revealing to the reader the bias of the source. I'm only using Southern Poverty Law Center as an example. All sources have their own biases. As concerns labels of racism, the reader should be told who is saying it and why they are saying it. This should be a part of the sentence, in plain English, not merely in a citation. Citations serve to support assertions, but they are not always looked at. The charge of racism is serious and overly used. If we are to use it responsibly we have to include additional information in the sentence itself. (Sorry to be so long-winded.) Bus stop (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Some people with a political agenda assert that Carlson amplifies white supremacist points but none provide any specific examples. Tucker has criticized immigration of low-skill workers because this suppresses wages of low-skill American citizens. This is nationalism, to be sure. But it is not "white nationalism." These assertions about white supremacy are based on vague talking points of political operatives, not factual information or analysis. It is a slender reed for so mighty an issue to rest upon. Sbelknap (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, among the "people with a political agenda" who assert that Carlson amplifies white supremacist points are Andrew Anglin and David Duke. They are not liberals. Guy (help!) 13:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

That is whom I was thinking of. These people have a political agenda to enhance the perception of their own importance. Saying that this somehow results in Carlson "promoting white supremacy" seems absurd. Particularly when Carlson repeatedly condemns in the strongest terms attacking people on the basis of their immutable characteristics (race, ethnicity, sex). I expect that Carlson would agree that he was a nationalist. He clearly is not a white nationalist or white supremacist or racist.Sbelknap (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this why he called Iraq a country made up of "semi-literate primitive monkeys" who "don't use toilet paper or forks"? Seriously, the article provides ample cites. O3000 (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, the list of people who think Carlson amplifies white supremacist talking points spans the gamut from SPLC on the left to Anglin on the right. This is one of the few things on which there appears to be broad bipartisan consensus. Guy (help!) 09:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

A long list of weak evidence does not constitute strong evidence. For WP:BLP, what is needed is strong evidence, which has not been presented. Sbelknap (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment

• On a recent note, Carlson has been sued by Cathy Areu for sexual harassment and the following was removed under the pretext of WP:BLPCRIME when Carlson is a public figure:

In July 2020, frequent guest Cathy Areu filed a lawsuit against Carlson and other Fox News personalities; accusing them of sexual misconduct. She alleged Carlson retaliated against her by booking her less after she refused his advances. The company released a statement that it had launched an internal investigation into Areu's claims and found them to be false.

Opinions? Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Pertinent RFC: [46] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, precedent pretty clearly indicates that this gets included. Guy (help!) 10:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Subject of lawsuit is notable. Filer of lawsuit is notable. Lawsuit covered in many reliable sources. It needs to be mentioned. This shouldn’t even be controversial. Volunteer Marek 08:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Those articles are remarkably thin on any actual information about what she claims regarding Carlson. Barely a paragraph, in an article otherwise completely about Ed Henry. Is it discussed anywhere if the NYT investigated the claims themselves, like with the 2 weeks they looked into the Tara Reade claim? Or are they just publishing this straightfoward as news? Mr Ernie (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This board is for BLP issues. There is no BLP issue with this content. Go to NPOV is you think it's UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 12:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

To be honest I don't know why we even bother anymore. The people who opposed the inclusion of Tara Reade for Biden support this text against Carlson, and vice versa. Volunteer Marek literally removed the entire block of it while it was under discussion, forcing an article lock and RFC. We may as well get this over with for Carlson. I bet we could have entire talk page discussions without any actual discussion, just editors signing their names. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I already explained this to you personally, so why are you repeating what you know to be false? Volunteer Marek 09:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

References

I would have to go back and check but I think I actually opposed inclusion the one time I commented on the Reade case however, I can't find the edit. Volunteer Marek, why do you think this case is different than the Biden case? In the Carlson case we have a source that points out a lot of problems with basic facts in the allegation[[47]]. That seems to be similar to your objections here. [[48]] Springee (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Already explained. In this case you have one person who is independently notable filing an actual lawsuit against another person who is independently notable. In the Tara Read case we had a person who was NOT independently notable only making accusations. Here - lawsuit. There - no lawsuit. Here - both parties notable. There - both parties not notable. Whatever you think of the merits of the lawsuit is irrelevant - only thing that matters is whether it's notable (as judged by coverage in reliable sources).

Also, let me point out that this whole line that Mr.Ernie is pushing that "Volunteer Marek opposed the inclusion of Tara Reade story in Biden's article" is kind of BS. I opposed it when it first came out, since there was barely any coverage in reliable sources for the first week or so. Once reliable sources picked it up, I was fine with including it. So please spare me these bad-faithed insinuations that I am being hypocritical or something. Volunteer Marek 09:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You removed it in this diff, saying heavy isn't a RS, ignoring Fox News, The Guardian, Newsweek, and Vox, but whatever, OTHERSTUFF. The Carlson material is so thin and NEWSY, so please get consensus for the wording and appropriate weight it needs to be given on the talk page before you reinsert it. Additionally, the Fox personalities are being accused of widely different things, and lumping them all together is SYNTH and has BLP issues. We should be discussing this on the Carlson talk page before jamming it back in without consensus. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, like I said, initially I opposed it before it was picked up by more reliable sources. And what Guardian? That diff right there shows the sources are "TheUnion", "Heavy", "Newsweek" (which isn't all that solid), "Vox" (ditto) and "Fox News" (yeah, no). So basically exactly what I said. No Guardian in there buddy.

And I see that we're at the point in discussion where one or two editors are going to scream "NO CONSENSUS!!!!!!!" no matter what, after completely failing to provide any policy based arguments for excluding this. That's not now how this works. Volunteer Marek 18:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. No Guardian, and I'm not sure why I thought that. No, we are at the point where a discussion needs to occur on the talk page to weigh consensus if this is DUE and BLP compliant, and if so, what wording should we use. And I am glad we are still buddies. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, please review WP:NOCON. Please show there was a consensus for inclusion to support your restoration of the disputed material. NOCON says in the case of contentious material in a BLP the contest stays out until there is consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Right. Now you're just going to yell "NO CONSENSUS!!!!" regardless of what anyone says or what policy arguments are made. And that's after trying to inappropriately claim that WP:BLPCRIME somehow applies here even though it obviously doesn't. Volunteer Marek 18:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

In July 2020, frequent guest Cathy Areu filed a lawsuit against Carlson and other Fox News personalities; accusing them of sexual misconduct. She alleged Carlson retaliated against her by booking her less after she refused his advances. The company released a statement that it had launched an internal investigation into Areu's claims and found them to be false.

In July 2020, frequent guest Cathy Areu filed a lawsuit against Carlson and other Fox News personalities; accusing them of sexual misconduct. She alleged Carlson retaliated against her by booking her less after she refused his advances. The company released a statement that it had launched an internal investigation into Areu's claims and found them to be false.

BLPCRIM can not really apply since it is "For individuals who are not public figures". Not the case with a celebrity like Carlson. More relevant here is Public_figures: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Dimadick (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the type of thing we should ask, if we were 10 years down the road, would we include? Did this have a major impact on Carlson's career? And appears the answer is no (they were made, and claims dismissed by Fox, as this point, but that could change), so it seems trivial to include at this point. (the counterpoint where we did keep them even though they were false is at Neil deGrasse Tyson where some of his shows were put on hold pending investigation, a career impact). BLPs should avoid being laundry lists of every *thing* that happens to that person. --Masem (t) 14:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It's an actual lawsuit by one notable person against another. Yes, it matters. It may or may not have impact on his career 10 years down the road but there's no way for us to know that (and honestly, that kind of criteria can be (ab)used to remove anything, since these days who the hell knows what's going to be happening in 10 years). What matters is whether this is notable right now. And it is. Volunteer Marek 09:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

That's not how BLP nor notability works. Notability even for us is about enduring coverage, and just the fact that it was announced was just a flash in a pan aspect. (Contrast: the ongoing spat between Depp and Heard has been getting nearly routing coverage at every stage of their trial, so while we don't cover every facet, we do mention it in both of their articles.) Should the lawsuit led to ongoing coverage in the media - whether because its dropped, settled out of court, or leads to a jury trial - then it may be worthwhile to judge if it is due to put in. But just because accusations were made and in a form of a lawsuit doesn't mean inclusion is appropriate or necessary, because we don't presume guilt nor innocence here. Too many editors are writing BLP articles in proseline/hyperjournalistic style, documenting every single event, and not writing to how these articles are to be seen well after these events are long since past, as per NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM and BLP. --Masem (t) 18:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This would be relevant if for the fact that the filer of the lawsuit is herself very notable. Volunteer Marek 18:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if the filer's notable either. All right now is an accusation and court filings. Could it result in something significant? Sure, but its speculation to think that, so we fall back on the principles of BLP to "do no harm", and don't include material to either party (which would both Areu and Carlson here) until the suit's resolved. PUBLICFIGURE is important if the suit ended up with finding Carlson guilty (and assuming that was covered in the media) as then not covering it on the claim it was harmful to Carlson's image would be bogus. But at this stage, because we have no idea who's right or wrong, it has potential harm to both individuals and even though both meet PUBLICFIGURE, its better to wait to see how it resolves to judge, because there are several possible situations where the results could led us to not include the case at all. (eg quietly settled out of court where no media covers it, where the court dismisses the case, etc.) We are not required to match what the media is reporting on the spot, NOT#NEWS and BLP tells us to use caution in these types of subjects. --Masem (t) 18:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

References

• Agree that it seems un-notable as dismissed; if there are later charges resulting from it, probably change my mind and I'll favour inclusion. I don't give a toss for US politics, Biden, Carlson or whomever else - just saying that as others have pointed out, this appears to be an instance where somebody claims she was booked less often as a guest on his television show after turning down a request for a date, and that show producers looked into it and determined it was not even true. Mostcommonphraseongoogle (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Making light of sexual harassment is beyond the pale. Don't do it. BTW, where is the evidence that what she said "was not even true"? You do realize that the word of Fox News wouldn't be reliable in such a case. -- Valjean (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Nobody is "making light" of anything, I am summarizing the basis of her complaint which seems to be that she was booked less often as a guest on the television program after indicating she had no romantic interest in him. Repeating HER telling of events can hardly be "making light of sexual harassment"; please stop bad-faith namecalling. Mostcommonphraseongoogle (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Uh, what do you mean "as dismissed"? The suit has certainly not been dismissed. "Charges resulting from it" is also irrelevant as this is a civil suit. Volunteer Marek 09:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Include - this one is a no-brainer. Public figure, reported by multiple reliable sources, and no logical reason to keep it out. JimKaatFan (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC) This is turning into a back and forth over the content. Currently this appears to be a no-consensus discussion. It might be useful to have a RfC or other means to settle this discussion. Springee (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No it's not. There is consensus for inclusion. Stop trying to pretend otherwise. Additionally, neither you nor Mr.Ernie has provided any actual policy based reasons for exclusion, aside from yelling "I deny you consensus!". It's impossible to actually discuss this if you don't actually make any arguments. Volunteer Marek 18:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If there is a consensus based on head count, show it. If it's based on policy show it. Springee (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I've called the RFC for both the sexual harassment and and somewhat related doxing issues. [49] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The page has been edit protected by an administrator now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No - NYTimes stated: Fox News, in a statement, said that it had retained an outside law firm to investigate Ms. Areu’s claims and determined them to be “false, patently frivolous and utterly devoid of any merit.” Fox News issued the statement on behalf of the network as well as Mr. Carlson, Mr. Hannity and Mr. Kurtz, who were also named as defendants in the suit. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, And Fox is clearly completely independent and has no dog in the fight. They certainly have no history of denying valid accusations of sexual assault. Apart from that one time. Guy (help!) 11:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, they obviously don't have The NYTimes in their corner investigating the allegations, so if the arguments here don't work as well as the RfC arguments at Talk:Joe Biden, we use WP:INTEXT, which is what we should be doing anyway for all WP:REDFLAG, WP:LABEL and other contentious material. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Krystal Ball – hacked photos

Occasionally, editors have sought to add content about hackers leaking photos of Ball to her page.[50] She wore a revealing outfit and someone else at a party had a sex toy on his noise. I think the content is just slut-shaming and should be removed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It was reported by the Washington Post[51][52] and New York Times[53]. We don't whitewash because we don't like it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Just because something is reported by a RS does not mean we must add it to a BLP. Can you explain why hacked photos are encyclopedicly relevant? If someone wants to read about the hacked photos they can go to the RS. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It impacted her race. From that New York Times article: "Ms. Ball’s experience raises the question of whether American culture will ever evolve to the point where voters tolerate pictures of future leaders in various states of inebriation and undress." Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

So the NYT even thought that this was trivial. Are there any current sources still talking about this? Is it an enduring, significant cultural event? If not, then WP:NOTNEWS. Woodroar (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Within the past year; and nine years after the incident. [54][55][56] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright, so if there are current, nuanced, and retrospective sources—especially scholarly sources pointing out sexism in the original coverage—why is our summary still essentially "she was embarrassed by compromising photos"? That's gossipy and undue. And it's in no way "whitewashing" to remove those statements until they can be fixed, especially when BLP says that such content "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Woodroar (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Then fix it? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I did, by removing it per BLP and UNDUE. And multiple editors here agree that this was the correct decision. But you added it back with old sources, even though the text is gossipy and not a great summary of those sources. Woodroar (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Editing is not all or nothing. Either fix that quote so it becomes less gossipy (is it really gossip to quote her directly?) or add how she feels about it now if that has changed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

But it can be all or nothing. That's why WP:BLPRS and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and WP:PROVEIT exist as policies. It's not my job to fix the content you add so that it's compliant with our policies. And no editor is obligated to look for sources before removing unsourced or poorly sourced content on BLPs. Especially when we're talking about creeps leaking photos of consenting adults. Either it's gossipy tabloid news trash and doesn't belong on Wikipedia, or it has some enduring value—but if it's the latter, it's up to you to make sure that any content you add meets BLP and COPO. Woodroar (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No, you removed the two sentences saying the source was poor, possibly undue.[57] I reinstated them with stronger sources that verify them[58] and then also give a number of other sources in this discussion. Now you argue that the last sentence or the quote is too gossipy (subjective). So fix what you believe is wrong with it unless you believe the only solution is "nothing" at all on this topic. This is supposed to be part of the WP:CYCLE! Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

For the moment, I believe the solution is nothing. The section was UNDUE when it was supported by one poor source, and it's UNDUE now that it fails to reflect (what appear to be) better sources. I'm also not convinced that it rises above WP:NOTGOSSIP/WP:NOTNEWS. And multiple editors feel the same way. (I mean, Masem and I agree and that basically never happens!) So there's your BRD/CYCLE: content was added (repeatedly), it was removed (repeatedly, and on good-faith BLP grounds), and it's now up to you to build a consensus to restore a policy-compliant version if that's what you want. But please understand that when I say that I'm unconvinced this is encyclopedic content, I'm open to the idea. The whole story is gross and puritanical but so is plenty of history, right? I think the best path forward is if you remove the section and then write up some basic summary of the sources, then we can see if there's a version that works for everyone. Woodroar (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

So you were just throwing up specific arguments to waste everyone's time in thinking there's room for refinement. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping that you'd follow BRD and BLP and agree to some kind of good-faith discussion, because you have in no way built a consensus for the version that's currently in the article. And I'm not the only editor who thinks so. Woodroar (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

If someone wants to read about the hacked photos they can go to the RS regardless of whether we should include the sentence or not, that is some dodgy reasoning. Why even have Wikipedia at all in that case? People can just go to the RS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, for non-encyclopedic content people can go to a place other than an online encyclopedia. Not everything that is reported by a RS needs to be dutifully logged at WP. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

We need a hell of a lot more editors to be thinking on these lines, not just on BLP but a whole bunch of topics. We're here to summarize what sources say for the long-term coverage of a BLP or any other topic, not to be a summary of the news. I'd estimate at least 25% of the conflicts between editors on WP would go away if we all kept this mind and didn't race to include every little incident that happened because it happened to be reported in RSes. --Masem (t) 14:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not a little incident. This is part of her notability and jumpstarted her career as a political pundit.[59][60] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, looks WP:TABLOID to me. This kind of thing is only really relevant when it is directly relevant to the person's public actions (e.g. anti-gay congresscritters who turn out to be awfully well known to the local rent boys). Guy (help!) 10:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Unnecessary at this point to include, even if normally reliable sources are reporting it. We don't laundry-list everything reported about a BLP. --Masem (t) 22:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The incident was also discussed in the context of bias in the expectation of women politicians in these scholarly works and the role of social media in opposition research [61][62][63] I would also argue tabloid topics aren't covered by NPR.[64] Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't quite follow the arguments above claiming it isn't relevant or significant. To quote WaPo: Then risqué photos of Ball emerged on a pair of conservative blogs. Taken at a costume party when she was 22, the pictures show Ball and her ex-husband holding a sex toy. The story was irresistible to the media: A young, attractive female candidate with a memorable name (her father, a physicist, wrote his doctoral dissertation on crystals) is undone by suggestive photos and the perils of the Internet. Her candidacy, which had drawn almost no attention, suddenly moved into the national spotlight. According to her official biography, which doesn’t shy away from the photo controversy, Ball’s name quickly became one of the most-Googled terms in the world. She appeared on MSNBC and Fox News. (emphasis mine) How exactly are we coming to the judgement that this is laundry-list or run-of-the-mill stuff? Second, Are there any current sources still talking about this? you could say this about much on Wikipedia over a few years old. With that reasoning, we should probably just purge the majority of content on Wikipedia as WP:NOTNEWS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Not knowing the BLP at all; and reading the section 2010 U.S. House campaign, I literally said out loud: "What on earth is this doing here?!" Editors time and again at WP remove content under the statement: "We are an encyclopedia, not a Tabloid." I cannot imagine any WP editor condoning this as encyclopedic. Remove. Maineartists (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a large dose of whatever the content equivalent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is. We're not linking to the pictures. We're talking about the event. It has nothing to do with being a tabloid. Reliable sources, like the Washington Post, note that her campaign was unknown until this, which put her into the national spotlight, becoming "one of the most Googled terms in the world". There is absolutely no reason for removal of this topic entirely given here. It needs rewording honestly, and I can see how some may say it's slutshaming as written right now. We do include events like this on articles where it's particularly relevant, e.g. Jennifer Lawrence, a featured article (ctrl-f "leak"). It's clearly particularly relevant here, for the bolded reasons in my previous statement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Remove This is a BLP and we are dealing with content that was acquired illegally. That alone should make us hesitant to include. There is the possibility this will have an impact on her campaign. We can handle that by taking a wait and see approach. This might just be flash in the pan news rather than something with real staying power. Is this going to pass the TENYEARTEST? Not sure. But I'm certain that if we err on the side of exclusion and later find that this was a big deal after all, well we have NOTIMELIMIT. We can add the content later when we have a better perspective on it's impact. Springee (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The scandal was 10 years ago. From the Cosmopolitan citation in the article [65]: "Rather than knocking her down, though, the scandal launched Ball into a new career as a political commentator on television." From the Washington Post[66]: "Celebrity works in funny ways, and Ball acknowledged she wouldn’t be on the right path now if she had not become famous for the wrong reasons a year ago."Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Sarah Amiri

Here's an interesting one. The PERSIAN page for Sarah Al Amiri Sarah Amiri contains the assertion that she is of Iranian, Baloch origin. She emphatically is not - the source linked is not credible - most certainly not to BLP standard - and Amiri herself is descended from the Emirati Awamir tribe, the singular of which is Al Amiri, hence her family name. There is also a Persian family name of AlAmiri which has no link whatsoever to the Emirati Bedouin origin name. The Persian page is unique in containing this assertion and has been protected for only approved users, at a time when Al Amiri is prominently the focus of legion global news stories because of her involvement in the Emirates Mars Mission. So how does THAT one get fixed? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexandermcnabb, this is en.wiki, an entirely separate organisation from Persian wiki. You'll need to enquire there. John from Idegon (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Alice S. Fisher

There is a severe distortion of facts at: Alice_S._Fisher#Major_cases. (I work for Latham Watkins, where Alice Fisher works and have a COI.) The following paragraph has been distorted to make it seem like Fisher blocked or obstructed the prosecution of Jack Abramoff, when in fact, it was Fisher who coordinated the case in which Abramoff pleaded guilty to three felonies.

The existing paragraph is:

"One of her first major investigations in the DOJ according to a January 2006 The Washington Post article, was the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal involving Jack Abramoff, who was a movie producer, an American lobbyist, and a businessman. According to a May 1, 2005 Newsweek article, the case was particularly challenging because of the alleged close relationship between Abramoff and then House majority leader, Tom DeLay (R-Tx). The Abramoff investigation was overseen by prosecutor Noel Hillman. With Fisher's appointment as AAG, Hillman would be working under her leadership. According to the Newsweek article, while Fisher was "widely respected", she was also a "loyal Republican socially close to DeLay's defense team". The case was settled in September 2008, after Fisher left the DOJ, leading to the imprisonment of Abramoff for 48 months on "corruption, fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion" charges."

First, the paragraph omits that Abramoff pleaded guilty as part of a broad public corruption investigation during Fisher's tenure; the charges were announced by Fisher and she coordinated the case.

Second, the Newsweek article cited above is from before Fisher even became Assistant Attorney General - it speculates on how she might do her job if she were to be appointed. But on Wikipedia, the Newsweek article is positioned as though it is a critique of her work investigating Abramoff while she was AAG - in fact, she didn't start as AAG until seven months after this article appeared. The related Wikipedia sentences have been positioned severely out of sequence to distort the meaning - taken together with the failure to mention Abramoff pleaded guilty, the paragraph is written to make it appear as though Fisher didn’t pursue the Abramoff matter because of politics. This is false.

Third, the source about Abramoff's sentencing does not even mention Alice Fisher and it does not say that Abramoff had already pleaded guilty under Fisher's tenure. The final sentencing, which this press release announces, was held until after it was assured that Abramoff had fully cooperated with the ongoing public corruption investigation - yet the paragraph on WIkipedia makes it seem like Abramoff wasn't prosecuted, for political reasons, until after Fisher left -- a completely false narrative.

Here is a suggested replacement paragraph, which also corrects smaller problems, such using a non-existent Washington Post article (I looked and found no Wash Post article that says this), and replacing sources that don't actually support statements:

 "One of Fisher's first major investigations at the DOJ focused on congressional corruption and the Jack Abramoff Native American lobbying scandal. As part of a broader investigation of public corruption, in January, 2006, Fisher announced a deal in which Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist, pleaded guilty to three felonies, including conspiracy to bribe public officials, in return for Abramoff's cooperation in the broader investigation."

There are more details in a proposal I posted at Talk:Alice S. Fisher#Request Edit May 18. No one has participated yet and this is too contentious a matter for a simple Request Edit. I've left a notice there that the discussion is being moved here. JZ at LW (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Kevin Deutsch

• Kevin Deutsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In accordance with Wikipedia policy, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue."

The "Kevin Deutsch" article requires attention from administrators due to repeated attempts by users deleting and mischaracterising source material they don't like, most notably a clarification/correction to the primary source article , an online piece published by Rolling Stone. The RS article states in an update: "Update: This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources." It is the most recent journalism on the subject of Deutsch's controversy - a NEW amendment to an OLD article - and should be included in the first sentence or at least paragraph of the subject article in accordance with the living persons policy, as it is the last word on the matter as far as RS is concerned. As of right now, the article does not mention Rolling Stone's clarification/amendment to their piece, despite its demonstrable importance/recency. This and other violations of the living persosn policy are chronicled in greater detail in mine and others' posts on the article talk page. The language currently used in the article is potentially actionable due to libellous and demonstrably false misrepresentations, particularly the sentence at the top stating there are "allegations that Deutsch has repeatedly fabricated sources, quotes, and events." This language does not appear anywhere in the source materials, intentionally and knowingly mischaracterises the events of 2017, and should be revised immediately. Thank you.

References

Harringhome1977 (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

More context at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Kevin_Deutsch - MrOllie (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'd prefer to keep this discussion in one place, and note that Harringhome did not ping me about this, but I want to just address the idea that the disputed sentence in the lede is "demonstratably false." It says that Deutsch was alleged to have "repeatedly fabricated sources, quotes, and events." Note that in the AFD, it was agreed that these allegations are the only notable thing about Deutsch, that his career as a freelancer journalist would be instantly deleted as non-notable otherwise. This sentence is amply backed by multiple, independent reliable sources in the article.
  • Was this source invention "repeated"?
    • "In July, the paper said it found 109 people whose existence it could not confirm in 77 articles, out of roughly 600 written by Deutsch. Henley, the paper's editor, steers clear of characterizing this figure, or imputing intent or motive. But if one assumes that the people Newsday couldn't find are made up, the number is shocking. Most mainstream news organizations would fire a journalist for a single instance of inventing a source or a quote, let alone dozens and dozens of them." https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/a-journalist-on-the-crime-beat-becomes-the-subject-of-some-skeptical-journalism/2017/09/15/c5139096-9711-11e7-82e4-f1076f6d6152_story.html
  • Was Deutch accused of fabricating quotes?
    • "Problem? iMediaEthics contacted G4S and it says they never had an employee with that name. "We have no record of an employee (current or former) named Eric Baumer (or close variation)," Monica Lewman-Garcia, the Communications Director for G4S Secure Solutions – North America, told iMediaEthics by e-mail. (Detailed quote by Eric Baumer follows) https://www.imediaethics.org/exclusive-572-stories-fmr-ny-daily-news-crime-reporter-review-nyt-admits-source-fail/
  • Was Deutch accused of fabricating events?
    • "(Quoting Pill City, Deutsch's book:) "People from all over Maryland come to pay their respects to Marvin Grier: clergy members, cops, Black Lives Matter activists, and, of course, his fellow interrupters," Deutsch writes. "They trade stories about the fallen preacher, marveling at all he's given this wounded city—his time, his fortune, and, finally, his life." Something like this large funeral did happen with Little Melvin Williams in December 2015. But Williams died of stomach cancer, and Deutsch is adamant that he did not model any "Pill City" characters on Little Melvin or create any composites. He also says that Grier was not an accountant. City Paper asked Deutsch to put us in touch with anyone who might have known the real Grier. He refused, citing his promise to protect his sources." The article also discusses that most of the events of Pill City appear to be made-up, but the huge funeral especially. http://www.citypaper.com/blogs/the-news-hole/bcpnews-inconsistencies-raise-questions-about-pill-city-a-baltimore-tale-of-drugs-and-murder-20170217-story.html
• Again, these are just allegations. Maybe they're incorrect. But these allegations happened; you can't say that Deutsch was not accused of them, by respectable, mainstream outlets. Yes, we shouldn't over-focus on the negative, but unfortunately for Mr. Deutsch, he is famous in the same way Stephen Glass is famous: famous for having the veracity of his work questioned. It'd be disingenuous to not mention this key fact in the lede, the only reason why Mr. Deutsch has a Wikipedia article at all, the only thing that reliable secondary sources have covered about him. SnowFire (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Filter 1068

• Filter 1068 (log)
• Also see: Special:Permalink/969265324#Is_BLPNAME_really_applicable?

Filter 1068 traps addition of the wife of Derek Chauvin. This was a 100% legitimate WP:BLPNAME issue when it was created, but there was only one hit prior to today and since yesterday a substantial number of sources have been published which identify both Chauvins as defendants in a tax fraud case (e.g. [https://apnews.com/56bea6e3d1ea1aaeba129522df43294f substantial writeup by AP).

Do we think this filter is still justified? Guy (help!) 16:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say yes, because she still is a non-notable/non public figure (or someone trying to avoid being a public figure) person, and BLP recommends we try to avoid harm. In the context of the bigger picutre of the Floyd protests, she is just the wife of Derek, that's all she needs to be identified as, even when noting that "Derek and his wife were charged with tax fraud." Her name is not relevant to the story; naming her makes it a bit easier to write but absolutely not required. --Masem (t) 18:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Not Justified: Subject is an indictee in a non-notable tax fraud case that has received notable coverage in the New York Times, USA Today, CBSNews, ABCNews, NPR, LATimes.com, FoxNews, BBCNews, TheHill.com, MinnPost.com, MSN.com, StarTribune.com, NYPost.com, Yahoo.com, NBCNews.com, NYDailyNews, BET.com, MercuryNews.com, Independent.co.uk, StarTribune.com and many others. Her name has not been concealed by any cout or occupation. Per WP:BLPNAME, there is no reason to omit. Kire1975 (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Except that the tax fraud case has gained attention through her husband who became notable from criminal proceeds from the Floyd arrest. That's the only reason she may be at the center of attention and per BLP's overall principle we should be very well aware this doesn't make her a public figure like her husband is. --Masem (t) 03:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

If the George Floyd thing never happened, how about a Mrs. Minnesota contestant who got a a thousand word article in the Pioneer Press in 2018 that includes the name of her husband/co-indictee for tax fraud? There are whole pages about less notable figures. Kire1975 (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

If Floyd never happened and an article was created on her, there's a good chance it would've been deleted at AfD. Let's not pretend she's well known in her own right. That said, one could make the argument that she's not WP:LOWPROFILE (per the criteria there). But I'm not sure how many people you'll sway with that argument. I continue to advocate for not mentioning the same, but think mentioning the relationship is fine. Consider that information on Wikipedia will persist long after WP:Recentism dies out. To restate my opinion from the now-closed section elsewhere, Wikipedia has a responsibility to BLPs. She's not really a high profile individual inherently due to her involvement in the tax fraud, she's gaining publicity due to her relationship with Chauvin, and using the 2018 pageant as a reasoning for her being high profile is a dubious claim imo. We don't give any additional useful information to the reader by naming her, so I don't see this as being a hard decision to make. The whole point of BLPNAME is to be policy for Wikipedia not to name someone when RS' do, where it would be inappropriate to name. I don't really see good reasoning here for why naming is appropriate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

She is being discussed in terms of a single event. She is directly involved with the topic of Derek Chauvin. Her name has been widely disseminated. It has not been intentionally concealed by a court or occupation. There are hundreds if not thousand of reliable sources about her by now. Change my mind. Kire1975 (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be wise not to mention her name. Even if we were to consider her notable enough, she'd be notable because she's Derek Chauvin's wife, and not because of the tax fraud she participated in. Given the sensitivity of the subject and the social unrest and outrage centered on her other half, we need to be extremely careful with the amount of information we reveal. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• The lawyer for the individual in question told the press he had started the process to legally change their name, because the individual in question had received death threats. On a personal level I agree with everyone else here - death threats are terrible - even ones that aren't credible.

  However, this individual's name, their old name never qualified for protection, under the "not widely disseminated" passage of BLPNAME as their old name was very widely disseminated. When I first counted how many google hits, in early June, 269,000. 269,000 google hits - no one has ever explained how it ever made sense to try and protect a name that widely disseminated.

  I've always supported protecting their new, and as yet unknown name.

  ProcrastinatingReader mentions the WP:LOWPROFILE guideline. Yeah, the individual doesn't meet the criteria for of LOWPROFILE. The first paragraph of LOWPROFILE contains the sentence "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." Well, the individual in question was the subject of multiple scheduled interviews. WP:LOWPROFILE#Media_attention explicitly says individuals who have given scheduled interviews don't qualify for LOWPROFILE protection.

  ProcrastinatingReader mentions WP:RECENTISM, and predicts the individual would be forgotten, eventually, if only we don't include their name. First WP:CRYSTAL, second, this case will remain significant in the same way as Rodney King, or OJ, and Kato Kaelin, a peripheral character who might very well be forgotten in a less prominent case, is still remembered, still recognized, still gets google news hits.

  Masem and Licks-rocks have both asserted this individual is only known for a single relationship, and that single thread is not sufficient. Please recognize that heavy-handed administrators have been slapping revdel's on every discussion where coverage of other aspects of this individual's role have been discussed. You and I simply can't have a meaningful discussion over the other ways this individual is notable enough to earn some mention in other articles so long as those heavy-handed admins are revdel'ing discussions that mention the individual. One of those administrators was even going so far as to revdel edits that merely linked to an RS article where the RS article made a passing mention of this individual's name. I wish I were just making this up.

  EEng has claimed the BLPNAME passage for names that have been "intentionally concealed" kicks in. Yeah, let's protect their new and unknown name. That is the name that is being "intentionally concealed" here. I won't try to explain why EEng is the only person here who has speculated as to what the new name would be, but I have asked them to quit doing that. Geo Swan (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Geo Swan, this is the second time in less than a day that your fevered brain has emitted this accusation about me [67]. Do it one more time and I'll have you at ANI so fast it'll make your pointy little head spin. Some very smart people had to waste their time crafting an edit filter just to keep you in check, but I doubt that will be the technique used in future if you keep this up. You need to go find something else to be obsessed with. EEng 13:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, not the TMZ. We cover material at a high level, not drilling down as far as some media outlets are going to in trying to cover Derek Chauvin (someone they want to villify in relation to Floyd). That means nearly everyone with a connection to him is getting pulled down with him, including his wife. So yes, maybe they together are now in a tax fraud case. Those happen all the time, as pointed out, absent the case involving Floyd, the case probably would have only be a brief mention in a local MPS newspaper instead of widespread coverage. We need to use common sense here, not blind adherence to "oh the name's out there in 100,000s of sources". BLP is the rule and this is the time we should be following it as would we do for non-notable close family members of notable people. --Masem (t) 13:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Masem, thanks for your reply. I offered a challenge to whether this name ever met the BLP criteria for protection, and is your answer basically, "we are not TMZ"? What do you think of my point that it is only her new and as yet unknown name that merits protection? As above, we can't have a full, meaningful discussion over how much of the RS coverage of this individual is at the TMZ level, and how much is at the NYTimes level, and merits being summarized in other articles, so long as such discussion risk being revdel'd any time someone asks other contributors to review a url to an RS article that includes her name. Geo Swan (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Even her old name (at this point) is unnecessary, for the reasons I'm say. The rest of the media is digging as deep as they need to fill 24/7 coverage, they are trying to learn everything they can about Derek because of what he did, etc. His wife had nothing to do with, and while she's part of this tax case, that's wholly unrelated. Let the media dig, but that's where we need to draw the line, until it is shown to be of direct relevance to the criminal factors related to Derek's involvement with George Floyd. Think about what the case will be like 5-10 years down the road, what are key facts? Is it the wifes name? Not at all (at this point, at least). --Masem (t) 14:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Masem, Kimmy Yam, of NBC, wrote an article about the individual I won't name. I am not going to include the url to her article, as those revdel'ing administrators past history suggests they would be likely to disruptively devrel this discussion. Please do me a favor and do yourself a favor, google '"Kimmy Yam" NBC'. You'll recognize that article near the top. Please take a good look at it before you repeat your claim there really isn't any merit in covering this individual in more detail. Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• I am assuming you're talking the June 22 article, which touches on her, but only as to set up a discussion on how women of her ancestry are treated in the US. Not sufficient to name from that. --Masem (t) 14:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Thanks for looking. I am not sure you found the right one. The article I am looking at was published on June 22nd, but it doesn't merely "touch" on the individual, over half a dozen paragraphs address the individual. I think I have to clarify that, so people who read your comment don't take your dismissal at face value, and think it is a mere passing mention. Geo Swan (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason to believe including this person's name would improve readers' understanding of the subject, so I'd prefer to continue to exclude. —valereee (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

---

• Noting for the record (as the person who initially added the filter, though you should direct any blame to EEng since it was his idea) that I've got no objection to modifying the filter as appropriate based on the outcome of this discussion. Not that my permission is actually needed or anything. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  GeneralNotability, I'm not sure if you're being "blamed". However, I'm assuming an edit filter creator is expected to do some level of due diligence before creating a new filter, even at someone else's suggestion? Again no blame, I'm just curious about your comment. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  Bagumba, the "blame" comment is just me giving EEng a hard time. No deeper meaning :) GeneralNotability (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  I will retaliate at a place and time of my own choosing. Technical note: probably the separator between the two names should be *{1,10} or something like that, instead of ( )* or whatever it is now; I think there needs to be a real EF grimoire to gather good practices like that. EEng 03:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• GeneralNotability, thanks for clarifying some of the background of this filter. I have no real experience with these filters, and I am going to assume your implementation of this filter is consistent with the general way filters are put into place.

Let me say that I accept that there are occasions when the Wikimedia Foundation, and wikipedia administrators, may have no choice, and really can't make certain decisions in an open and transparent manner. I do, however, think those occasions are relatively rare. I would encourage WMF directors and staff, and wikipedia administrators to make their decisions as openly as possible. When complete transparency is not possible, I'd encourage partial transparency.

This particular filter says "You may not view details of this filter because it is hidden from public view." There is no signature, or date, or link to the general policy the filter implementor thought justified the filter. Was that level of obfuscation really necessary?

Perhaps you could answer some additional questions?

1. This filter - are its actions based on urls in the edit? Certain administrators were revdel'ing good faith contributions when the urls in the references pointed to third party RS that made passing mention of a name they thought they were authorized to obfuscate. So, filters like yours don't go that far?
2. Where is this filter active? The person who reported it, a couple of days ago, on Talk:Derek Chauvin, was able to include urls on the talk page the filter blocked from article space. I assume it only acts specific namespaces. Does it just act in article space?
3. Is this filter active on every single article, in article space, or has it been restricted to only act on articles related to the Killing of George Floyd? There are third party RS articles that cover the individual in question in contexts outside the Killing of George Floyd. Will this filter act there too?
4. When a filter's content and history is not being obfuscated, where would interested parties go to review the discussion that lead to its implementation?
5. How common is it for filters to be put in place when one individual makes an off-wiki suggestion for one?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Geo Swan, in order:

1. Its actions are based on the addition of the name we're discussing to an article, its presence in an edit summary, or someone creating an account with that name.

2. It is active in all spaces. I assume that it did not flag because there were dashes or underscores or something in the URL between the parts of the name where it expected spaces.

3. It is active on all articles.

4. WP:EFN, and that is a reasonable place to raise concerns about private filters as well.

5. We usually prefer on-wiki discussion, but there is a (private) edit filter mailing list for discussions on topics where we don't want to go into detail on-wiki. That is where this came from, since EEng is an edit filter helper.

Now, a bit more about private filters: they are restricted so that a limited number of users (administrators and edit filter helpers) can view them or their recent hits.They are used for those times where we don't want people to be able to see the filter (either to prevent abusers from circumventing it, or in this case because the filter itself contains sensitive information). I can't do much about "no signature, date, or link to policy," that's just how MediaWiki implements filters - the hide status is all-or-nothing and the filter names are deliberately vague. In this case, I agreed with EEng's suggestion that including the name of Chauvin's ex-wife following their divorce was enough of a privacy issue that an edit filter was appropriate (especially since there had been a few edits immediately before I implemented the filter which were revdeleted). Because of the BLP privacy concerns and because her name is sufficiently unique to have a low false positive rate, I handled this like we handle most major BLP privacy situations - addition of the name is blocked in all articles and all spaces. And yes, I gave EEng a hard time above, but the final decision to implement and activate the filter was on me. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I proposed the filter after WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039#Killing_of_George_Floyd_article_repeatedly_vandalized. By their nature, private filters are created after a less-than-transparent process. The question How common is it for filters to be put in place when one individual makes an off-wiki suggestion for one? is silly, since everything, in all areas of human endeavor, begin with one person's suggestion (which in this case, as already noted, had to be off-wiki); the right question is: was there then the usual discussion among filter managers, and the answer is yes.

This discussion is pointless except the extent that it considers whether the filter should remain. The last comment is valllerrreeeeeee's I don't see any reason to believe including this person's name would improve readers' understanding of the subject, so I'd prefer to continue to exclude and there's been nothing on point since. And I agree with valllllerrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. EEng 03:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Dennis Toeppen and IPs

The article Dennis Toeppen (and related Suburban Express) have a long history of editing by .. well, many people, but especially various IPs that have a decidedly personal point of view. There's certainly not enough for a WP:SPI, but I'm hoping others can sniff it out. Obviously I'm involved, as I've researched the topic over the years and attempted to keep at least some of the shreds of content intact. Can others take a look? Aside from the edit histories on the articles, the comments (eg Talk:Dennis Toeppen and especially Talk:Dennis Toeppen/Archive 1, Talk:Suburban_Express#Previous_Discussion_from_Archive_2) are informative. If it were one person, it'd explain the sufficiently advanced understanding of Wikipedia policies and such. tedder (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Note this has been on BLPN at least twice in the past; some commentary on this 3RR IP too. tedder (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Richard B. Woodward

Richard B. Woodward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The photograph you have posted is not the arts critic Richard B. Woodward. He was born in 1953, not 1950. He is aged 67. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.136.178 (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't have a photo or a date of birth in our article on Richard B. Woodward. You're probably seeing the Google knowledge panel, which has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Jennifer Raab

Jennifer Raab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sycophantic language, defensive attitude about criticisms, omission of real problems in the subject's career, and general puffery add up to a largely glorifying article with little informational value. Specific issues too numerous to cite and article should be removed or entirely revamped on the basis of real reporting and an accurate array of sourcing, not just favorable sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.72.71 (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Tiffany Trump - birth circumstances

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.

---

Tiffany Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) On the page Tiffany Trump, there was an edit by Mrphilip to add a word describing the birth circumstances of Trump. This was removed by an IP, but reinserted by Davey2010. Another IP removed this with it getting reinserted again. Factfanatic1 also removed this. In the talkpage Dave defends their actions by saying that old-English terms should not be removed just to appease a snowflake I will notify both IPs via talkback about this being raised at the noticeboard. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

As stated on the talkpage I thought the term had been on the article forever and I essentially thought people were trying to remove the term, Given it hadn't been on there before it can continue not being there now. –Davey2010^Talk 17:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why that term needs to be there. I'm not sure why the circumstances of her parents' marriage is relevant for the sentence. This feels like an attempt to disparage her character.--Jorm (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this for real? It adds nothing to the article and it's just a nasty gratuitous smear. Stupid. No. SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Not OK I don't care who the BLP subject is, we should never put such information in the lead. What possible encylopedic value does it have? Absent any significant context it would be bad enough to up that we was born out of wedlock anywhere in the body of the article. In the lead paragraph of her early life section, not at all. This is a BLP and we should always err on the side of "do no harm" when there is otherwise no compelling reason for inclusion. Springee (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

---

• Noting for record - A) I don't at all agree this was a BLP violation, Yes "Bastard" has 2 meanings but context matters and in this specific case there was no BLP violation, B) This "issue" was resolved long before this pointless thread was created so therefore I felt it was far more sensible to remove it than to close and archive (because everyones comments were unhelpful and were creating more heat than light). It's a shame there's a minority on this place who feel dramah is much more important than the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davey2010 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010 and El C: I read above that it has been deemed "an egregious BLP violation" but here is Davey2010 saying "there was no BLP violation". Can you explain that contradiction? Mo Billings (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I am the uninvolved admin attending to this matter. Davey2010 is the involved editor. They can believe and assert whatever they wish, but I have made my decision. This report will be archived for the record, as it should. I have warned Mrphilip in strong terms about the addition. I have also warned Davey about their actions, a warning which they have chosen to remove without answer, using the edit summary "How very sad." I will reiterate my warning to Davey, then, to not clerk active noticeboards discussions with which he is involved. Otherwise, I am reclosing this report. El_C 20:01, 27 July 2020 (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.

Paul Zenon

Onlydemi seems to be writing the Paul Zenon article in order to promote Paul Zenon. 86.162.14.214 (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

They haven’t edited that article since October 2014 so unless there’s more to,this I don’t see any point in discussing promotional editing that’s almost six years old.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexander Ludwig

Someone keeps removing that his father, Herald Ludwig, was a former co-chair of Lionsgate Entertainment. The reason why someone keeps removing it is because they feel (fans most likely) it makes Aleksander look like he used his father's position in the industry to break into Hollywood. That's true. Fact is fact and it should be posted accurately. Here is the citation: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/929351/000095012310107484/y87849def14a.htm

There, you can find-

"Harald Ludwig Age: 56 Director Since: November 1997 to December 2004, June 2005 Position with the Company: Mr. Ludwig is Co-Chairman of the Board, Chairman of the Special Committee of the Board, Chairman of the Strategic Advisory Committee of the Board, and a member of the Compensation Committee of the Board. Business Experience: Since 1985, Mr. Ludwig has served as President of Macluan Capital Corporation, a leveraged buy-out company. Other Directorships: Mr. Ludwig is a director, a member of the Governance and Nominating Committee and Chairman of the Compensation Committee of West Fraser Timber Co. Limited, a public company listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange, and a director, Chairman of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, a member of the Audit and Compensation Committees of Canadian Overseas Petroleum Limited, a public company listed on the TSX Venture Exchange, and a director of Prima Colombia Hardwood, Inc., a company listed on the TSX Venture Exchange. Additionally, from 2007 to 2009, Mr. Ludwig was a director of Third Wave Acquisition Corp., a company formerly listed on the American Stock Exchange. Qualifications: With over 30 years of business and investment experience, and as a founding partner or private equity investor in a number of North American and international private equity firms, hedge funds,mezzanine lenders, growth capital providers, distressed investment firms and real estate investment vehicles, Mr. Ludwig provides unique insight and valuable advice on business practices. Moreover, Mr. Ludwig’s practical business experience, financial and business acumen and his connections in the business community provide the Board with critical perspective on the business issues the Company faces and make him uniquely qualified to serve on the Board. Residence: West Vancouver, Canada"

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1525:C48A:74C9:5396:5A43:C6D3 (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

What you provided is prohibited under our policies of using government documents to prove things for biographies aka WP:BLPPRIMARY. Further the sources in the article don't state his parents' respective names. Where did they come from? Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Found a news source that confirms his parents' names and Lionsgate connection [68] and inserted it into the article. That should keep the information static. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Albert Santalo

The 8base section is not cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.32.99.91 (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Added a citation to the Miami Herald and cleaned up the language to make it verifiable and neutral. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

After reviewing the sources about him, I have decided to AfD the article because of notability and COI issues.[69] Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Michio Igasa

This person is passed away according to company tweet,which is written in Japanese,(still listed as living person.I didn't modify it as I couldn't prove anything) Through there's no Japanese wikipedia article for this person,name is wrong,possibly gender is wrong. I myself no knowledge for Animes,so I myself cannot fix this.I need help for this article include deletion if needed.--Paperworkorange (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Mike Matheson

The following libelous and defamatory information was added to Mike Matheson's (ice hockey player) wikipedia bio and should be removed.

His father, Brayden Point, and the Tampa Bay Lightning destroyed Matheson. Matheson had a +/- of -5 that game, and holds the record of the worst +/- in a 21st century exhibition game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58C:C200:9300:6C3D:4942:46AA:2BDA (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Rina Sawayama

Today, I learned that Rina Sawayama was ineligible for the Mercury Prize because she is not a British national.[70] I had removed the British part of her leade, [71] but now believe that is contentious. Should Wikipedia continue to call her Japanese-British? Some reliable sources continue to refer her that way (or technically vice-versa) in speaking about the controversy.[72][73] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

I objected to: this edit as a violation of WP:BLP

While our guidelines permit removal of such material without further discussion, I decided to go the extra mile and asked the editor who added it to remove it: Requested redaction

That editor did not initially understand the issue, which I tried to explain. Their response suggests I was simply looking for a source, and they provided a source but the source did not backup the claim. I asked again for it to be removed and they declined.

Therefore, I removed it myself. Despite this being a classic WP:BRD, two editors failed to open a discussion on the talk page and reverted, thereby restoring BLP violation. I removed both and ask that a discussion be opened on the talk page. Neither did that so I opened the discussion on the talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Andy_NGO_blp_violation.

I checked Wikipedia:Edit warring to confirm my recollection that removal of a DLP violation is an exception to 3RR. it is but that exception also suggests opening a discussion here, so I'm opening a discussion here.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Now an editor has restored the material making the astounding claim that accusing a journalist of perpetrating a hoax does not qualify as a BLP violation.

The word "hoax" isn't covered by BLP, BRD or for that matter BLM

Striking through the word is not sufficient IMO.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Stella Grace Immanuel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Immanuel

Dear Wikipedia Editors, I am surprised that Wikipedia , reputed as it is as a knowledge source, should consider it appropriate to devote a page to Dr. Stella Grace Immanuel who is in the news for just the last two days for having made outlandish and scientifically debunked claims.

I am especially disturbed that such a person should be accorded such importance, because in the past when I had created biographies for reputed personalities, I had received severe pushback from your editorial team till I was able to prove that those personalities were decorated with awards and honors.

Please consider taking down this biography as it is merely according importance to a person who is currently in scientific and medical societies being considered a charlatan. I am myself a Pediatrician and Hospitalist and a Oncology Subspecialist with plenty of publications, and it if offensive to see the biography of such a doctor whereas you certainly do not have biographyof every other doctor in the country who are far more accomplished than her. I would argue that I should perhaps even have my biography on Wikipedia.

Regards Sunil Muthusami, MD,FAAP, PEdiatrics, PEdiatric hospital Boards Medicine, PEdiatric Hematology/oncology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smuthusami (talk • contribs) 00:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Move request discussion: Title for the Suicide of Kurt Cobain article

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Suicide of Kurt Cobain#Requested move 27 July 2020. I figured that I might as well post on this noticebaord about it as well since how the family members feel is one thing being discussed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)