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.

Rupert Sheldrake

This is not the first time that Rupert Sheldrake has made it to this noticeboard. This extensive discussion took place in 2013 [1], without resolution. In addition to BLP, there are several other problems with the article, including NPOV and ownership, and these overlap significantly with the BLP issue. The article is currently being used as a vehicle for a core group editors to promote their POV. They have essentially locked it down, to the extent that permission must be obtained by members of this core group to perform even minor copyediting work.

Although the article is a biography, much of the text is devoted to the idea of morphic resonance and a repudiation of it. The rejection of the idea is repeated throughout the article, but starts in the very first sentence, where the idea is described using the weasel word "conjecture". Criticism of morphic resonance occurs in multiple sections, and this has led to the article becoming a coatrack article. A link repository to invariably critical sites has been established within the article. As an example, this sentence in the lead is tagged with no fewer than 22 critical references: Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been widely criticised. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and inconsistencies between its tenets and data from genetics, embryology, neuroscience, and biochemistry. They also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances undermines the public's understanding of science. Further links to critical websites are given in the Notes section and throughout the article. Within the Notes section there are no links to material offering an alternative view, even though a Google search results in numerous instances of such material being available. Undue weight is being given to the idea of morphic resonance, and in particular to a criticism of it. The constant criticism makes it difficult within the article to differentiate between criticism of Sheldrake himself and criticism of his ideas.

Despite there being numerous external references to Sheldrake being a biologist, any attempt to describe him as such is immediately reverted. A comparative example is Brian Josephson. Even though "In the early 1970s Josephson took up Transcendental Meditation and turned his attention to issues outside the boundaries of mainstream science," he is still called a physicist because of his notable work in the field. It would be absurd to make the argument, as some have with Sheldrake, that since his work in mainstream science took place several decades ago, he is no longer a scientist. While some will argue Sheldrake's work in mainstream science was not notable, we should point to his discovery of the chemiosmotic model of polar auxin transport. (See more info here [2]) We can also point to the Guardian, which called him "one of the most promising Darwinians of his generation" [3], the New York Times, which refers to him as "the biologist Rupert Sheldrake" [4], the Washington Post, which describes him as a "well-regarded plant physiologist" [5], Scientific American, which calls him a "renegade biologist" [6], and the Telegraph which states that he was "once a cell biologist at Cambridge." [7]. And here is a more recent article in the Church Times, a reputable source already used in the article: [8] and describing Sheldrake in the headline as a biologist.

Further to these points, the Talk page has recently attracted disparaging remarks about Sheldrake. For instance, Sheldrake has been described as a "wooster" (whatever that might be, but obviously a pejorative description) by User:Roxy the dog; see Talk page, Archive 21, and as a "confirmed charlatan", by User:Eggishorn here [9]. These are just some recent examples. A glance at the talk page and its archives show that there is a core group of about five editors that repeatedly express hostile views of Sheldrake as an individual. Of course, they are entitled to their opinion, and scientific consensus on his work should be reflected in the article's text. But per BLP and NPOV policies, the editor's voice should not be used to demagogue, and many of these editors have insisted upon just that.

A potential solution to the BLP problem proposed by Arcturus was to create a separate article about morphic resonance, and to use summary style regarding the subject in the article, shifting its focus to Sheldrake as an individual. Of course, good faith editors may disagree on whether this is the appropriate solution and should all have the opportunity to make their case either way. Unfortunately, the discussion about this possibility was quickly closed down here [10].

A read-through of the discussions will show that many of these concerns have been ongoing for years. A number of editors, many of them veteran contributors to Wikipedia and some of them newcomers, have raised these issues and more. They have invariably been met with hostility, incivility, accusations of disruptive editing and even threats of blocking for simply raising said issues on the talk page and attempting to have a good faith discussion about them. While I know that editors will disagree on how exactly to proceed, I hope we can at least agree that good faith contributors should have their ideas considered and that greater collaboration on the article would do it some good.

HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Or, alternative interpretation: A small group of enthusiasts for ideas not accepted by science are crying BLP to avoid the obvious fact that Sheldrake is only notable for his WP:FRINGE ideas and WP:CANVASSED support for this post to avid complying with the WP:CCP. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Rupert_Sheldrake is also of interest. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn, was WP:CCP really what you meant? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, you are, of course, correct. WP:COPO Thanks for catching it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that HappyWanderer15 and Arcturus discussing the best way forward in the face of difficulties amounts to WP:Canvassing.

If so, then this across at the Rupert Sheldrake talk page might also be construed as canvassing or "rallying the faithful": "For info, Arcturus is plotting a BLP noticeboard appearance. [diff] -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)"

As for this report being brought on behalf of a small group of enthusiasts, many individual and largely moderately-minded editors have attempted to make changes to the article over the years, mostly to simply add the word "biologist" to describe Sheldrake, or to blunt the heavy-handed criticism of him, and their edits have inevitably been reverted, to the point of page ownership.

I'm sure that the opposing group of editors and their supporters have the best interests of Wikipedia and truth at heart, but their brand of militant, dogmatic – and above all proudly-uncompromising – scientism creates unnecessary difficulties and animosity, imo. Esowteric+Talk 09:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I admit that when I first saw the infobox and lead I wanted to edit it to say biologist like Buzz Aldrin is listed as an engineer in present tense. A PhD is a lifelong label isn't it? Then I saw that his history as a biologist or biochemist or whatever is mentioned in the first paragraph and thought there must be a reason. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

When Sheldrake worked as a scientist, he was not notable. If he had not become a woo proponent ("wooster"), there would not be an article about him, as a scientist or otherwise. All journalist sources you gave are from a time when he had already joined the other team. Before he did, none of the publications would have found him interesting enough to write articles about him.

When Josephson worked as a scientist, he was very notable. If he had not become a woo proponent, there would very obviously still be an article about him. His article contains lots of material about his work as a scientist.

So, "he is no longer a scientist" is true of both, but one of them has once been a notable scientist and the other has not.

Comparing Sheldrake to Josephson, regarding mention of their scientific field in the lede, is apples and oranges. A better example is Angela Merkel: She is not notable as a physicist, and she is not called "physicist" in the lede, but her article is in Category:Physicists, as Sheldrake's is in Category:Biologists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling - actually, "he is no longer a scientist" is true of neither. Josephson and Sheldrake both retain their scientific credentials, despite their interests in other areas outside the bounds of mainstream science. The Josephson article acknowledges this in its wording. The Sheldrake article does not. If Sheldrake were not notable as a scientist, it seems unlikely to me that the editor of Nature would take the time to write an article condemning his work in that journal. I'm sure he would not have been the first, nor the last, minor scientist to become interested in parapsychology and write about it. The difference is, rarely are any of the others acknowledged, and certainly not by the editor of one of the most prestigious academic journals in the field. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

HappyWanderer15, please re-read the core content policies I linked to above because argument and interpretation are not helpful here. We don't write what we think about subjects, we write what the best possible reliable sources say about subjects. If you want to Sheldrake's article to present him as a legitimate working scientist, you need to present good quality sources which describe him as such. Context matters in evaluating sources. Trawling through search results to find passing mentions and presenting them out of context is not helpful. E.g., in the NYT 3,615-word lifestyle profile of Andrew Harvey (religious writer) you link to above, the sum total of the reference to Sheldrake is: "This fall, a television documentary about Harvey's own life, "The Making of a Mystic," will be broadcast in England in a British religious series called "Witness." In it, Harvey conducts dialogues about his beliefs with his friend Dame Iris Murdoch ("for the Platonic view," he says); Anne Baring (a Jungian and the author of "The Myth of the Goddess"); the biologist Rupert Sheldrake, and Sogyal Rinpoche." That is not a reliable source for calling Sheldrake a biologist. It is a reliable source for stating that Harvey called him a biologist and Harvey is a mystic and scholar of Eastern religions, not an authority for scientific qualifications. Similarly, the WaPo article is by the founder and long-time editor of the Post's Style section. Despite all the digital ink spilt in Sheldrake's "defense" no reliable sources that are qualified to evaluate Sheldrake's scientific credentials and make the point you want made have ever been presented. NPOV does not mean, "present both sides". NPOV means, "present what the sources say without taking a side". For example: Maddox did not "write an article condemning his work". He reviewed Sheldrake's A New Science of Life and said that "even bad books should not be burned." That you are phrasing it in that manner indicates that you are trying to inject Sheldrake's perspective because that's how Sheldrake writes about the review on his own website. He's apparently still unhapppy about that review almost twenty years later. Bottom line: the quality sources that are independent of Sheldrake do not and have not and probably never will describe him as a scientist or biologist or biochemist. They describe him, at best, as a "former" scientist, etc. etc. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

As it turns out, I am quite aware of the core content policies you cite. These policies are not dogmas and there is not only one way to interpret them - i.e., through the lens of Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans without balancing it with other concerns. I find it especially strange that sources such as NYT and WaPo are, to you, "unqualified" to evaluate Sheldrake's scientific credentials, and yet opinion pieces like this and this, are cited in the lead as if they were objective pieces of journalism. Yes, NPOV means "present what the sources say without taking a side." But this does not mean that we only permit sources which represent one point of view to be cited, particularly when these sources are opinion pieces. Of course, we note the mainstream view that morphic resonance is generally considered pseudoscience, but we don't need 22 references for that, and we don't need to belabor the point 3 times in the lead alone. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Fine, you have your own private interpretation of the policies. That allows you to tell yourself that your opinion is still within the boundaries of the policies, but it is not enough to convince anyone that your private interpretation is right and that the article should be adapted to them.

After that piece of special pleading, which could be used almost word for word in every other case where someone wants to go against policy and is therefore worthless, you suddenly change the subject. Before, this thread was about calling Sheldrake a biologist in the lede, and now it is about reducing references? Does that mean you give up? Starting a new section would be better then. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

"No longer a scientist" means "no longer working as a scientist". Irrelevant nit picked and unpicked. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, if you look at what I have written above, you will see that I raised a number of concerns. Among them: Sheldrake not being called a biologist despite many sources calling him one; needless repetition and POV pushing regarding Sheldrake's work; an excessive number of references intended to "debunk" all things Sheldrake (WP:COATRACK), as if an individual, and not his ideas, can be debunked; undue weight given to the subject of morphic resonance. It was argued by Eggishorn that my sources were not reputable. So, I pointed to other sources currently being used in the article which are clearly questionable as well. The purpose is to get a dialogue going as to just what sorts of sources are acceptable. Are opinion pieces OK, or should we go for objective journalism? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That depends: if you call scientific reasoning "opinion pieces" and false balance that gives equal weight to science and fringe, or more weight to fringe, "objective journalism", then opinion pieces is definitely the way to go. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@HappyWanderer15:, most of what needs to be said has already been said by Hob Gadling but I need to respond to this: "...you have your own private interpretation of the policies." A: Every editor has their own interpretation of the policies because every editor is an individual human and policies are designed to be flexible and encompass multiple viewpoints. Stating that I have a "private interpretation" does nothing to invalidate what I've said. B: What I posted was not, in point of fact, an interpretation of the policies; it was an evaluation of your sources. If you want to propose sources to support your point, you should expect that other editors will evaluate them and try to verify that they support the point. Your sources failed verification, one of the foundational (yes, I'm sounding like a broken record at this point) core content policies. If you can't provide a source that survives verification, then the point (no matter how positive or flattering of the article subject) isn't going to be allowed in an article. That is what BLP means. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Please provide example(s) of what would be classed as - in your words - "a quality source". Arcturus (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RS. You are welcome. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 19:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn, I have several recent examples of reputable sources, such as the BBC, describing Sheldrake as a biologist. It's difficult to work out precisely what you require of a source, but it seems you're suggesting that the only acceptable material would be some academic research, with the specific purpose of determining whether or not Sheldrake is a biologist. Is that where you're coming from? Arcturus (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You know, if you really wanted to describe Sheldrake as a biologist (rather than wanting to deny it, come hell or high water), I'm sure you could easily rustle-up sufficient mention from the results of a Google Scholar search (obviously ignoring Sheldrake's own publications). But clearly, as Stafford Beer pointed out, "The purpose of a system is what it does". Esowteric+Talk 18:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

To quote the instructions at the top of this page: This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. Nothing has been said here to establish such issues, only that there is a content dispute. Further discussion of sources should take place on the article talk page. I have taken the consistent position that no good-quality sources have been presented to justify the requested edits. To ask me to produce such sources myself is a mix of asking me to prove a negative and flipping the burden of proof. I decline the invitation to do other editor's homework for them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn, as you know, attempts to reach agreement about this article on its Talk page invariably result in stonewalling and closing down of the discussion. However, I'll do as you say and present a series of references, including material mentioned by User:Esowteric. If no legitimate argument against the references is forthcoming I'll add the material about Sheldrake being a biologist to the article. I'll provide a number of references, any one of which would, on its own, be sufficient. A valid counter argument against each will be needed. As to this being a content dispute, yes, the issue of Sheldrake being a biologist or not is just such a dispute. Unfortunately, there are several other problems with the article and some of them do relate to BLP. Nevertheless, let's take things one step at a time. I'll come back to the other matters, either here, or on other relevant noticeboards, once we've sorted out the current issue. Arcturus (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Arcturus, as you know, or, at least, should know, "I will do this unless I am satisfied with the arguments against it" is not how WP:DR works. It is, in fact, a very good definition of WP:TE. It is certainly not complying with consensus. I would suggest that the course of action you suggest is likely to lead to sanctions. Please step carefully. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite interesting that, regardless of the forum in which editors who disagree with the current state of the article raise their concerns, they are invariability met with stonewalling, intimidation, or misdirection tactics from the article owners. One of these tactics has been to say "this is not the proper forum for you to raise these issues," only to be told the same thing again (by the same people) once the issues are raised at a different location (such as a relevant noticeboard). Often, this has devlolved into wonton incivility towards dissenting editors. A perfect example can be found here from the same user who, ironically, warned me against making personal attacks here. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at sources, it seems Sheldrake used to be a Cambridge biochemistry don, but his notability derives from his later claims. Thus the current article lede appears to be admirably policy-compliant. Alexbrn (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion as to whether or not Sheldrake should be credited as being a biologist continues at the article Talk page. I assume the discussions here are now closed, prior to archiving. I'll take up other related issues at the relevant noticeboards. Arcturus (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I think continuing the discussion elsewhere could be shading into being WP:DE since from the widened participation of this noticeboard, there is apparently no consensus to make the pushed-for change. Probably time to let the poor WP:DEADHORSE be, and move on to something productive instead. Alexbrn (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Before this thread is archived, perhaps I could ask a question, which can hopefully be answered by uninvolved editors - i.e. editors who have never edited the article in question and who are not interested in WP:FRINGE and the like. Is it acceptable, from a BLP point-of-view, to use the terms found in these diffs to describe Rupert Sheldrake, albeit on the article Talk page:

[11] [12] [13] [14]

Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Arcturus, one of those comments is mine. I said: well, yes, technically, but he is the poster child for motivated reasoning and bad faith attacks on science. I would defend that as a simple statement of fact. When you are promoted as a sage by the likes of David Icke, that's a pretty clear indication that you've departed Planet Reality.

You can get opinions from editors experienced with fringe topics at WP:FTN but I don't think you'll get a different answer wherever you go. Sheldrake is known for exactly two things: morphic resonance; and complaining at enormous length about how science is evil and bad because it won't drop its standards to the level where it will accept morphic resonance.

Without morphic resonance and his endless and highly public war with real scientists over it, he would almost certainly fail any of our relevant content inclusion guidelines. And without his war with science, morphic resonance itself would not be notable - it's a one man conjecture with no credible evidence to support it. There is only one topic. I think we should have the article at morphic resonance, but consensus is that it should be at the current title. Most of the confusion comes from the fact that this is presented as a biography. This is a common issue with crank theories. Guy (help!) 10:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Is Tucker Carlson a white supremacist? Would an RFC on his talk page say so if he was?

I am considering asking that Talk:Tucker Carlson#RFC on MMfA white supremacy timeline be re-opened, and I would like to ask initial impressions of such a request here, first, please. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@EllenCT:, the question that has to be asked is: Has anything changed since the last RfC or would re-opening it just be presenting the same evidence and arguments that were part of the last RfC? Re-litigating RfC's without new evidence and new sources is rarely either successful or pleasant for all concerned. If there is new evidence or Carlson has made a notable statement or set of statements, then it could be under WP:CCC. I don't follow Carlson so I am asking as an honest question. Given the current BLM moment we're living through in the US, it is certainly possible he's made some such statements or old stuff has newly come to light. In the absence of anything such as that, though, I would advise against reopening it. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be far better to open an adjunct discussion elsewhere. EllenCT (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean WP:FORUMSHOP? Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

It's been a third of a year. Do you believe the talk page watcher respondents reached the same conclusion a wider cross section here might reach? EllenCT (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Meh, your argument is speculative and based on faulty premises that this noticeboard would bring any wider of a cross-section than a WP:RFC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Is that an RFC you made with sources to Media Matters and Salon? PackMecEng (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes; why? EllenCT (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Just making sure. Neither of those are appropriate sources for that kind of information. PackMecEng (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

What is the evidence that MMFA doesn't have good data on white supremacist agitators? EllenCT (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Media Matters for America, depending on definition of "evidence". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

To which specific provision do you refer? Are you claiming that there is any evidence the source list isn't entirely reliable in this specific context? Any evidence that any of its hundreds of entries are fabricated or misrepresented? EllenCT (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The RfC was closed just 4 months back. It was clearly against inclusion. What has changed in the last 4 months? Has the list gained new notoriety or credibility? Was their something improper about the last RfC? If not then this absolutely shouldn't be reopened. Springee (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The person, just since I opened this section three days ago, has been the subject of a so far very successful boycott campaign accusing him of being a white supremacist agitator. How many months do you believe is required, and because of what policy or guideline? Why is this not a bona fide WP:CCC situation? EllenCT (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Springee. Where is the proof that he's a white supremacist? Was he wearing a white sheet at his graduation, or during his program? Did he wear black face paint? Did he say he was a white supremacist, or is it somebody's opinion because he is a conservative and they are liberals, and this is an election year? We need substance to support such claims per our BLP policies. Please provide evidence. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: how many of the 200+ timeline items mentioned in the original RFC have you evaluated so far? EllenCT (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

In response to your question, Ellen, I read enough to feel comfortable participating here, but why don't you share with me 5 of your top picks from the timeline items that were most convincing to you, or did it take all 200? I'm willing to change my position if the evidence is convincing and not just opinion by detractors, political opposition or clickbait competitors. I look for RS that are closer center in either direction unlike Media Matters which identifies as a progressive research and information center who believe they possess the qualifications necessary to oversee/analyze/criticize their political opposition and conservative media. May I also recommend an article authored by Jason L. Riley, WSJ editorial board? He wrote an excellent piece that speaks to this labeling issue much better than I can on such short notice. The Atlantic published another good article that addresses these issues. Actually, I try to adhere closely to WP:LABEL, WP:REDFLAG, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP in these instances. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Given 1) We have According to CNN, Business Insider, Vox, and GQ, Carlson's show has promoted and echoed white supremacist discourse in the article on him already, and 2) an issue of the original RFC that will not have changed was the leading of Media Matters, I don't see any need to change it. If a more thorough examination of Carlson's show white supremacist discourse has been offered by a highly reliable source to add to that list, that's something to consider adding to the above statement. --Masem (t) 03:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Susie Boniface

Susie Boniface (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I got a very upset phone call earlier from the subject about this article, which claimed she was a domestic abuser, and cites a 404 link, an uncheckable radio interview from 2013 and a blog post from the subject that she says is taken well out of context, and is being used to portray the opposite of the situation. She tried fixing it herself as Elbooelboo, but admits she doesn't really understand our bureaucratic procedures.

The claims removed from the article were:

Boniface separated from her husband, a Sun journalist, in 2006.[24] Her book described both her work as a journalist and their divorce, in which she referred to him using the insulting pseudonym, Twatface.[25] In a 2013 interview on BBC Woman's Hour, Boniface admitted to abuse of her husband such as using his toothbrush to clean the toilet.[26] In a separate incident she was arrested and received a formal warning from police after assaulting her husband, having repeatedly kicked him in the testicles and smashed a window at his house.[27] Boniface also admitted to hacking into her husband's voicemail.[28]

These are extremely strong claims about the subject, and I'm pretty sure that's really not adequate sourcing to back them up.

I deleted the text, locked the article for now and put a note on the talk page that I was doing so under the provisions of WP:BLP and that I'd bring it to BLPN forthwith.

Ms Boniface forwarded me her description of events, which she submitted as the way she'd write it up:

Boniface separated from her husband, a Sun journalist, in 2006. Her book described both her work as a journalist and their divorce, in which she referred to him using the insulting pseudonym, Twatface.

In her book, after describing how a friend was beaten by a partner, she describes herself being a victim of coercive control, now recognised in legal terms as domestic abuse.

It says: "I suppose it was my fault for arguing back. He said it was, anyway. I can't even remember what we rowed about now. There were quite a few times I was scared, when I thought we were both unsafe, and afterwards I'd curl up in a ball and cry and he'd make me apologise to him. Once or twice, when he came home, I locked the bedroom door. He didn't like that." After a section discussing cocaine abuse in Fleet Street, it adds: "My kind and loving husband turned into an angry, evasive stranger [...] I struggled with the thought my husband [...] could possibly be in the same category as the vicious thug who almost killed my friend. Could it really be I was at one end of the spectrum and she was at the other? [...] I remember the time Twatface made me get down on my knees and beg, in tears, for it all to stop. I did it because I just wanted things to be better. Remembering it now I was appalled at my own denigration in a way I had not been at the time. He broke me and I hadn't noticed."

It goes on to say "he might hurt me properly next time. I couldn't spend my life waiting for that".

She describes staying with her husband despite this, and later discovering he was cheating on her. She confronted him and describes a fight that followed: "He threw me against the concrete wall next to the steps. I fought and yelled, and as I pushed off the wall we spun around and I was thrown against the wall opposite as I struggled and screamed. A neighbour came outside, and a passer-by pushed between us, and told my husband to stop. 'It's all right,' said my husband with one of this charming smiles, as though it was a reasonable explanation for a street fight. 'She's my wife.'" She describes giving "two solid kicks to his testicles" and escaping, before the pair "wrestled" over a terracotta flower pot which "flew from our grasp" and smashed a window.

Boniface accepted a police caution for criminal damage over the window, and this was expunged from her record in 2012 under the normal expiry period in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

Her book launch was held at Century Club in Soho in 2013, and all monies raised were donated to domestic abuse charity Refuge. (Link: https://twitter.com/fleetstreetfox/status/300953889782509569?s=20 also https://twitter.com/fleetstreetfox/status/302022539440451584?s=20) She has given talks and donated the fee to Refuge (Link https://twitter.com/fleetstreetfox/status/339366961903435776?s=20) In 2020 during the coronavirus pandemic, she started a lockdown community project selling plants to raise money for a local domestic abuse service. (Link: https://twitter.com/fleetstreetfox/status/1258862815554789380?s=20). Refuge has promoted her writing on the topic (Link https://twitter.com/RefugeCharity/status/257815691057565698?s=20) and thanked her publicly for support (Link: https://twitter.com/RefugeCharity/status/268684758588985344?s=20)

In 2013 during a radio interview on Woman's Hour to promote her book, Boniface told host Jenni Murray how on one occasion, after he had been thrown out of the house, she had used her husband's toothbrush to clean the toilet.

We probably wouldn't use that text as-is, but it's there if someone wants to start off from it. Certainly it's clear pointers to relevant WP:BLPSELFPUB.

And I'm pretty sure claiming in the subject's article that she is an admitted abuser from the evidence submitted, with no context for the statements or situation, is not acceptable on Wikipedia.

She stressed that as a journalist, if something negative is well-sourced then that's fine - but that this was not.

Anyway, I'm putting what I have on this situation here for the review of others - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Most of the content in question was added by Shakehandsman. @Shakehandsman:, what specific evidence do you have to back up your claims, considering the very strict Biographies of living persons guidelines? Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Well this is a strange one. The passages posted above are remarkably different to the "same" segments posted in the Times, with the later having substantial amounts of material missing. The sources provided did support the claims when taken together, but it looks like someone at the Times has either been very naughty or made some sort of mistake and butchered the content to make it more sensationalist and more one-sided. The controversy still warrants inclusion, but if The Times have indeed twisted things and caused this problem, then we'll have to completely discount that source and use the book itself as the reference instead. I've had a look on Google books and fortunately the relevant passages are available there to view in their definitive form [15] Shakehandsman (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The book itself is a SELFSOURCE (since it was published by a third-party publisher, not technically a BLPSELFPUB). Perhaps a different editor should decide its noteworthiness, wording and sourcing? - David Gerard (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

There appear to be coordinated off-wiki attacks on the subject, making these claims about her (which I won't link, as obvious BLP violations), which the editor may have been misled by. As such, I'd strongly suggest leaving indefinite protection on the article under WP:BLP as a precaution, and running all proposed changes through the talk page - David Gerard (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The statistics for the page show interesting patterns, for no obvious real-world reason - David Gerard (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Boniface appeared on "BBC News, The Papers" on the following dates this year: 26/02, 13/03, 14/04, 1505, 12/06. Each of those dates coincides with a significant increase in page views. The other increases are probably as a result of other appearances she's made in, or on, the media. As for keeping this page protected, I would suggest not. This is basically a content discussion (not even a content dispute) and the editor who added the material is discussing it here. What are these off-wiki attacks? What evidence is there that they lead to adverse editing here? Preemptive protection is not generally favoured on Wikipedia. Boniface is controversial, at least when she appears on The Papers, so such attacks are only to be expected. Arcturus (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

A now-deleted blog post which was much-touted around Reddit coinciding with the recent additions, for example - David Gerard (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The now-deleted blog post is very interesting. It is still available googlecache and was published on June 11th in the morning GMT. I have saved a copy in case anybody is interested. The article talks about two living people Susie Boniface and Geoffrey Boycott. Curiously, Shakehandsman edited both articles - including adding material specifically discussed in the blog - on the 9th-10th [16] for Ms Boniface and on the 10th [17] and very early on 11th [18] for Mr. Boycott. ie before the blog post was published. Slp1 (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Slp1: could you put the link on my Talk page or email it to me? @David Gerard: what do you think about unprotecting the article? If anything untoward happens, edits can be quickly reverted and the article protected again. Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving it a bit for now, given the apparent organised attacks on the subject seem to me reasonable precaution within the wording "or believe that inappropriate material may be added or restored" of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Page_protection,_blocks - let's see in a few days if anything else turns up - David Gerard (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I will email you the links, Arcturus --Slp1 (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Slp1: Thanks, got it. Interesting stuff, but I would think most of the material is unsuitable for a Wikipedia bio, except perhaps as a brief summary. @David Gerard: Yes, seems sensible. Perhaps give it five days and see how things develop? Arcturus (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

It is totally unusable material. An absolutely unreliable source. You have missed the point. Shakehandsman was not "misled" by the off-wiki attacks (as suggested above by David Gerard). He was writing them. Slp1 (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Slp1, if you have evidence of that then you probably need to email it privately to ArbCom per WP:OUTING. If you don't, well, you probably need to withdraw it. Guy (help!) 12:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The blog is an anonymous blog- that I have not linked to- and there is no outing of personal information such as "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph", as specified by WP:OUTING. There is evidence (as described in part above). Emailing Arbcom is a good idea, though. Thanks. I will do that.Slp1 (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

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 [19] 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)

  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: [20][21] But since you mention "neutral notices", would you say Bastun's notice is neutral? [22][23][24] 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)

• 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) and 2. No çomment Option 1.B and 2 No * Until a better option is offered, I temp remove Neither Option 1A or Option 1B though they are BOTH misrepresentations of what she actually said. .....This RfC has not been put together neutrally, with option 1 B being worded 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 refering 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 (erronious) 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) add 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 [25] three charities are mentioned (GLAAD, Trevor Project, Mermaids), and at the politics page [26], 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)

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)

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." [27] 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)

• 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)

Kira Dikhtyar

The article does not have any citations. The subject does not meet notability guidelines. No reliable secondary sources provided.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminSky (talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

BenjaminSky, are you suggesting that the article should be deleted? If so, then here's what you can do about it. -- Hoary (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Julia Lescova

The subject does not meet notability requirements. No citations provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminSky (talk • contribs) 02:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@BenjaminSky:, there is no such article nor is there evidence that there was such an article that has since been deleted. Neither can I find an article that has a similar name that looks possibly-related. Are you sure you meant to post this at this project and not another language Wikipedia or related project? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

BenjaminSky has in the last few minutes corrected "Jula" to "Julia". Benjamin, are you saying that the article should be deleted? If so, then here's what you can do about it; if not, then please explain. -- Hoary (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Pedro Julio Serrano article

Pedro Julio Serrano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Disruptive editing going on there. See Ivan Santell (talk · contribs). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Well I tried to intervene and filed a 3RR. We need an admin to lock him. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Holy **** that's a clear case of NOTHERE! Yeah, that editor needs to be indef'ed Springee (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted the edits and their summaries. (But please ping me if I've missed something.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Mary Elizabeth Taylor

This article is politically sensitive. The sole source cited to explain why politician Mary Elizabeth Taylor resigned is the subject's own letter quoted in newspapers. That source is not sufficient for Wikipedia to call it a fact. Objectively speaking, the article should say, "According to her resignation letter" or "In her resignation letter, she asserted . . . ." This rule should hold true for all such references in any biographical article, unless there is external verification.Ukweli100 (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Ms. Taylor was a political aide, rather than a politician. Anyway, her letter was summarized and quoted by the New York Times. She quit the job, she said why she quit the job, her career in the job is noteworthy, and her cause for leaving is noteworthy. Why she left is not in dispute, nor does it seem controversial to me. To call the New York Times a "sole source" and imply there's some doubt or debate about the cause of her exit is an odd proposition. Mcfnord (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Turning Point USA

See WP:BLPGROUP - This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. There is no doubt that the person, Charlie Kirk (activist), is synonymous with Turning Point USA. He was the founder of the organization at age 18.

• See this diff and my edit summary for removal.
• See this revert by Beyond My Ken and his edit summary.

My reason for deleting is primarily that it is a violation of BLP:GROUP, WP:NPOV and WP:V and as such certainly should not be in the lead of that article. BMK's edit summary states that the revert is part of an RfC but I disagree. The RfC specifically states that the material is in the section "2020 Presidential election" not in the lead which is what I removed. The material for inclusion subject to the RfC is as follows:

In May 2019, Kirk created a new 501(c)(4) organization, a political action committee intended to target Democrats, called Turning Point Action,[1] which purchased the assets of Students for Trump.[2] Students for Trump had been founded in 2015 at Campbell University in Buies Creek, North Carolina by John Lambert and Ryan Fournier. Lambert left the organization some time after Trump's election, and in August 2019 he pled guilty to creating a fake law firm and posing as an experienced lawyer. The scam netted him over $46,000, which he will forfeit. Lambert also faces prison time. After Lambert's arrest in April, Students for Trump distanced themselves from him.[3]

I will not include the material I removed from the lead because it contains allegations of racist activity which I consider an exceptional claim per WP:REDFLAG and a violation of WP:V and WP:BLPGROUP. I also believe there are blatant NPOV issue in the presentation of that material. The edtor responsible for restoring that violative content should be dealt with in an appropriate manner as he has been problematically reverting material that he should not have been reverting. I wasn't sure if I should bring this issue here, or to AE. I look forward to your comments. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme fails to note that his deletion came in the middle of an open RfC [28] in which the material in question was being discussed. He denies this, but, in point of fact, his edit is simply another way of removing material in order to help to whitewash the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

As for the open RfC, see BMK's edit summary in this diff which states: (Undid revision 963452242 by Atsme (talk) Restore collapse of side discussion not pertinent to the RfC) and the comment in the collapsed discussion which states Ctop. How much more evidence of BMK's misrepresentation of my action is needed? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Atsme is a woman. But yes, this looks like WP:FORUMSHOPping. Guy (help!) 17:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme: My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Forum shopping, Guy? This is the only forum I posted in. What other forums are you referring to? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I meant canvassing. If you want to attract people to an RfC you must use a neutral statement. You know this. Guy (help!) 17:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong on that one, too, Guy I am not canvassing. I came to this BLP forum as I am obligated to do because I strongly believe there is a blatant violation of BLPGROUP and you need to be very careful of what you're saying here because you are making false accusations against me and so is BMK. Back-up your allegations and stop the aspersions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I can see why you would say this was canvasing since the comment mentioned the RfC. However, I think it was mentioned to illustrate that the disputed edit from earlier today was not related to the RfC material. I agree that they aren't related. I'm not sure about the policy related justification for the removal from the lead. I'm not saying it's right or wrong only that I don't understand the thinking at this point in time. Springee (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I can see the concern regarding is this a neutral heads up regarding the RfC. However, I don't think this was meant to be a RfC notification. The RfC enters into this because BMK claimed the material removed earlier today was the subject of the RfC. It is not. This edit [[29]] is not related to the RfC. The RfC involves a subtopic. The material removed from the lead is not related to or supported by the subject of the RfC. BMK really needs to tone down the incivility. Springee (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

BLP concerns apply with regards to the RFC, not just because of Kirk but because of the SYNTHING of Lambert into the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It's absurd to call it SYNTH, although I've agreed to partial removal because the events described occurred before TP Action's purchase of Students for Trump. The RfC was triggered by the attempt to claim that Turning Point USA's political action committee was not connected to TPUSA, even though it was created by Charlie Kirk and controlled by him, and takes action based on TPUSA's ideology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• I note the rfc is reaching a compromise solution. As for the revert here, Atsme removed too much. Most of it is appropriate sourced material to show the nature of the organization. However, the sentence "n December 2017, former employees " about the charge of being racist should be removed from the lede, (but of course not not the article,, because it's a single specific charge by a single group; it is overemphasis in the lede . DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with DGG on removal from lede, but not from article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree with DGG. In BMK's comment above he unequivocally states ...even though it was created by Charlie Kirk and controlled by him which makes the material noncompliant with WP:BLPGROUP and WP:REDFLAG. It is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary RS so the ONUS is on the editor who wants to restore the material. I actually did a bit of research for RS to cite to that extraordinary claim, and did not find any. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Charlie Kirk founded Turning Point USA - a fact, not controversial.

Charlie Kirk is the head of TPUSA - a fact, not controversial - 2017 IRS Form 990,

Charlie Kirk founded Talking Point Action as TYPUSA's political action committee - a fact, not controversial - CNBC article,

Charlie Kirk is the head of Turning Point Action - a fact, not controversial - 2017 IRS Form 990O.

QED. Nothing extraordinary here, except for the attempt to ignore plain facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Atsme's analysis of this section and agree it needs to be removed in whole as it is a blatant violation of WP:BLP:GROUP, WP:NPOV and WP:V, as well as WP:REDFLAG. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Why is there both a discussion here and an RfC on the page? Seems redundant. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  Please read my opening statement which explains that my removal of noncompliant material from the lead is not relevant to the RfC. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC) ^{Apologies, Horse Eye Jack, I did not realize a new RfC had been opened several hours after I filed this case, if that is what you were referring to. 13:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)}

• Some of the material removed is completely unambiguously not a BLP violation. The rest is just a summary of what's already in the article, with the only real BLP objection potentially the "illegal" business... but it seems silly that people are edit warring and trying to claim BLP (and now fully protecting it) with that full block gone, including material clearly not a BLP violation, and leaving available the material it summarizes. Here's the good plan: Close this thread, unprotect the page, restore the material, revise so as to summarize without BLP-objectionable content, and then finish the RfC (which has implications for, but is not about this matter). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

As already mentioned, any admin should feel free to reverse my protection and/or text removal. I do not object and do not need to be consulted further in any way whatsoever. El_C 04:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• BMK's list of uncontroversial facts above states clearly why the racist allegation is a violation of BLPGROUP - it relates directly to founder Charlie Kirk. What I removed from the lead included 3 sentences as follows;

1. the racist allegation and "potentially illegal involvement" statement was cited to The New Yorker. Neither allegation is proven/verifiably accurate, nor do they belong in the lead or body of the article. If anything, it could be used as an example of false allegations and biased spin by The New Yorker.
2. the second sentence was another LABEL by the Anti-Defamation League, a biased advocacy. Any editor who needs verification of their bias can simply go to their website and search "Joe Biden". I'm happy to provide 2 examples: this article and this one. Search Turning Point USA and you will see the stark contrast and obvious bias in how the articles are presented by ADL.
3. the third sentence was passing mention of an unknown author's opinion of TPUSA, saying that it is "shunned or at least ignored by more established conservative groups in Washington, but embraced by many Trump supporters". A comment that cannot be attributed to an author, much less verified as anything beyond a biased opinion is UNDUE and does not belong in the lead. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• There is no logical connection between my proof that Charlie Kirk runs both TPUSA and its political action committee TPA, and Atsme's restatement of their complaint. Certainly it does not support it in any way, and baldly stating that it does support it doesn't change that. It's simply a non sequitor, and can safely be ignored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• It is absolute logic, and should not be ignored. Charlie Kirk (activist) is referred to as "Leader" in the TPUSA infobox. Allegations by former employees that the organization is "engaging in racist practices" is not only a false reflection directly on Charlie Kirk but may be considered libelous - see the BLP TP template: 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 to this noticeboard. I consider these allegations to be poorly sourced per WP:REDFLAG which requires multiple high quality sources. Read my edit summary as it clearly demonstrates why the sentences were challenged and removed from the lead. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

BeyondMyKen Charlie Kirk is synonymous with TurningPointUSA, Wikipedia has put lots of precautions (such as WP:REDFLAG ) in place so that irresponsible edits (like the material in dispute) don't confuse a reader into wrongly thinking Charlie Kirk and/or TPUSA involve themselves in racist activities (as opposed to a select few isolated incidents which I do believe Charlie Kirk publicly condemns racism). Its very, very misleading and with the traffic that Wikipedia gets, especially a lead paragraph, it could result in extreme irreversible damage. EliteArcher88 (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

EliteArcher88, Charlie Kirk carefully positions TPUSA in the "mainstream" of the radical right fringe. The close afficinty for the Trump administration, "All Live Matter" propaganda etc., positions them solidly in that part of the right which is cool with racism, not cool wioth anything done about it, but doesn't usually use the n-word when anyone is likely to be listening. That's what the sources show. It's also what their social media feed shows. They say they are not racist, but the racists sure as hell think they are. Guy (help!) 13:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, what I see as the problem - your use of broad terminology and WP:LABEL. Kirk may be radical right in your perception of the term but he is conservative in his basic beliefs which is nowhere near radical right in the beliefs of others. His POV is different from the left - each side believes what they believe and labeling people because of their beliefs when the label doesn't fit is noncompliant with NPOV and other core content policies. Labeling white people as racists has been so overused by the left that it has lessened the significance of real concerns about racism, and it does far more harm than good as evidenced in quite a few articles, including The Atlantic, Chicago Tribune, The race card slowly loses its sting through overuse as we head toward 2020, and I'll use an opinion piece in the WSJ because the author is a member of the WSJ editorial board, and accusations of racism are not always based on facts but opinions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I am delighted that you are able to read Charlie Kirk's innermost thoughts. Me, I am forced to look at the external evidence, which shows them to be an astroturf group funded by billionaires who are known for trolling, mainly on social media.

All of which is fine and normal for 2020 (there is an endless list of billionaire-funded astroturf groups, after all), but right now Charlie Kirk is online claiming that lockdowns don't work, Democrats want to destroy the Lincoln Memorial, Bubba Wallace is a "fraud", that an exemption from a mask mandate for "People of color who have heightened concerns about racial profiling and harassment due to wearing face coverings in public" is racist, and a whole bunch of "Obamagate and other conspiracist claptrap, including that Roger Stone was "framed" and so on.

Literal quote from Kirk: Yesterday ALONE, 40 people were shot and 6 were killed in Democrat-run Chicago. This is on top of 100+ people shot and 12+ killed over the weekend. I wonder if Black Lives Matter will be rioting over all their deaths? Or does that not fit their narrative?

Exactly as I said: radical right and "all lives matter". Guy (help!) 16:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, your comment includes multiple unsourced criticisms and I'm not getting your point. How does any of it relate to the BLP vio under discussion? The NYTimes refers to Kirk as a "conservative activist", and/or young right-wing provocateur, and that is a long way from "radical right", racist or white supremacist. He tours with Candace Owens. Re: the lockdown, are you talking about Kirk's appearance on Fox back in March when he suggested reopening states with lower infection rates while leaving more heavily infected areas in quarantine? Again, not relative to this discussion. Re: the Lincoln Memorial, The Hill: In Washington, D.C., fires were set near the White House, and historic landmarks, including the Lincoln Memorial, became the targets of vandalism over the weekend. WSJ: Congressional Democrats in recent weeks have backed removing statues of people who are tied to the Confederacy or who are remembered for promoting white supremacy, especially in the U.S. Capitol building. And? Re: the BLM and black on black criticisms, see The Atlantic article, and USA Today. WP is not a SOAPBOX or a place to RGW. This discussion is about the removal of violative content per BLP. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, they are not unsourced, they are taken directly from the first page of Kirk's Twitter feed as of the time of writing. Denial is not just a river in Egypt, you know.

Kirk is 100% Trump Train "all lives matter" radical right. It is impossible to read his and TPUSA's social media feeds without concluding this. Guy (help!) 06:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, with all due respect, sticking a false label on the young man doesn't make it so. It stirs memories of what happened to Nick Sandermann. I'll stick with WP:PAG and verifiable descriptions used by the NYTimes, USA Today, and Chicago Tribune lest I fall prey to false accusations of political SOAPBOX, ADVOCACY or some other inane political agenda. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I get it: you want to think the best of him despite the undeniable evidence from his own social media feeds. But it won't wash.

https://twitter.com/charliekirk11

"Why are Republicans pushing a police reform bill, surrendering to the left, and not fighting to defend our country from terrorists? Or our history? Why is the Republican Party okay with the burning of our country?"

"Fact: You're more likely to be targeted for a hate crime for wearing a MAGA hat as a regular American than you are as a multimillionaire, black celebrity like Bubba Wallace or Jussie Smollett."

"The FBI acted quicker to solve the Bubba Wallace noose hoax than they did to hold the Obama Administration accountable for spying on President Trump What a disgrace."

You can ignore this as hard as you like, it's not going to stop being true. Guy (help!) 13:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I think you are illustrating one of the problems with many of your comments on this and other subjects. You have a very strong POV and are often very certain that the way you read something is the only correct way to read it. (Disclaimer: I am someone not in your head telling you how your comments come across to me. That doesn't mean your intent is what I perceive) First, we have to remember that hyperbole is, unfortunately, an often used rhetorical tool. Hence those who were for Obamacare would claim those who are against don't want what Obamacare claimed to deliver; affordable healthcare. Those who oppose some education bill don't want good education. Those who are against an equal pay law are against the idea of equal pay.

So going down the list, the first one is the one I would find hardest to defend. There certainly are police reforms that we needed and if the GOP can use this an excuse to get some of them done I'm for it. However, we also see stories about municipalities deciding not to prosecute those who were actually doing harm (rioting/looting vs civil protest). I can understand why someone might ask, why shouldn't those who broke into a store be prosecuted? However, absent more context I can't really be sure what Kirk was talking about.

What is the problem with the second one? I don't actually know what the statistics are but I think the comment focuses on how intolerant some people on the left have been towards people who have supported Trump/wear MAGA hats. There definitely is a level of irrationality towards anything Trump (and I think the guy is pond scum). So I guess its factually questionable to say a wealthy black person is less likely to be assaulted than a person in a MAGA hat, I'm not sure how this is a alt-right claim? I think it condemns those on the left who presume to claim that anyone wearing a MAGA hat is clearly racist etc. Perhaps they are an Ohio factory worker or West Virgina coal miner who is out of work and ignored by the Democrats.

As for the Wallace case again I'm seeing hyperbole but not racism on Kirk's part. The Micheal Flynn case has made it very clear that there has been problems with the FBI targeting people associated with Trump for political reasons. That doesn't mean the FBI did anything wrong with respect to the Obama-Trump period but his concerns are clearly not without any merit given how the FBI abused the system to go after Flynn.

Ultimately, you posted those quotes to prove Kirk was racist etc but they don't prove any such thing. His arguments are strong with rhetoric and hyperbole. You might be right and he might be an alt-right racist and these things might something an alt-right racist would say. However, they also might just be something a frustrated, non-racist would say. I would hope we all could agree that it's bad any time the FBI conducts an investigation for partisan, political reasons and that a person's political opinions or that they helped "the other side of the isle should never make a difference in how they are treated by the law. None of what I've said proves Kirk isn't racist or isn't supporting things that society should condemn, only that what you have posted thus far doesn't support the conclusion that he does. Again, I respect your thoughts but I think you are too narrow in your thinking here. It's kind of like admitting the French are right about... well anything ( :D insert British vs French humor here). Springee (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Its like arguing with a Wookie...all you get is the same growls and roars yet its mostly unintelligible.--MONGO (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Its an encyclopedia , and it should be treated as such, not a place where editors interpretations of racism get to override protocol and Wikipedia BLP guidelines, if there were exceptions to the rule it wouldn't really be an encyclopedia would it, would be more of a personal blog which frankly is what this thread and the TPUSA article reminds me of. Sure we can debate Charlie Kirk's inner thoughts, but its not who we are underneath but what we do that defines us. The fact is Charlie Kirk publicly repudiates and rejects white supremacy, he doesn't tolerate it in his organization, at the moment there are 4 isolated incidents (out of an organization with hundred of thousands of student members over a an eight year span) whom he quickly got rid of. Four isolated incidents doesn't merit a label in the lede for racism. Turning Point hosts a Black leadership summit, the nations largest young latino leadership summit for the past five years. TPUSA has a very diverse panel, Candace Owens was their communications director, David J Harris jr, Joel Patrick, Rob Smith, Anna Paulina were/still are TPUSA influencers/ambassadors. The racist argument gets really thin really fast. Even if you don't like the guy, if you disagree with his views, slandering him as a racist is really rough and it really diminishes the weight of that word sadly. Talk about it lower in the article, and give it due weight and be very careful with how you word it. EliteArcher88 (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I hope I am correct in posting here and in the ongoing RFC, sorry for redundancies but want to remain consistent across forums, I do think Atsme was correct in removing the content she did, trying to correlate Racism with a person and/or company is extremely damaging and in this case I believe it to be untrue, even speculating at racism on a Wikipedia article is wrong, especially in the lede.Eruditess (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I feel it is wrong and in error that the editor who started this section deleted the content that Beyond My Ken put in. I also think it is wrong for the editor who started this section to issue what appears to be a veiled threat to Beyond My Ken in the last paragraph of this diff [30]
  

I feel WP articles that include the reliable source's reporting on racism within TPUSA does not violate any WP guidelines. It does not violate WP:BLPGROUP, WP:REDFLAG, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, or any other WP guideline that I can find. TPUSA is large, national organization and I have found no reliable source to support the (above) claim, "Charlie Kirk is synonymous with Turning Point USA" so WP:BLP does not apply and neither does WP:BLPGROUP. Also, from my take, including the racism within TPUSA does not violate WP:REDFLAG, NPOV, or WP:V

Below is a short list of sources reporting on the racism within TPUSA:

1. (Newsweek) Trump Praises Conservative Group After Former Member's 'I Hate Black People' Text Surfaces: "i hate black people. Like fuck them all . . . I hate blacks. End of story," Crystal Clanton wrote according to the magazine's report Thursday. " \"Other employees also reportedly stated they felt some racial tension within the organization." [31]
2. (Politico) There is undeniably a racial component to the message often delivered by Turning Point USA .  In a December 22, 2017, story in the New Yorker. In that article, Jane Mayer uncovered two troubling things about the organization. The first was that its No. 2 executive had allegedly once sent a text message stating, “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all … I hate blacks. End of story.” The executive, Crystal Clanton, was fired 72 hours after the New Yorker told Kirk about the text message. The issue is tied to Turning Point USA’s founding. Kirk told me—and has said in public several times—that in high school he received a congressional appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, but lost that slot to a different candidate—a person he told me was of “a different ethnicity and gender.” [32]
3. (Azcentral) Gov. Doug Ducey was not aware that conservative group Turning Point USA had faced repeated claims of racism and anti-Semitism when he appeared at its Arizona facility opening earlier this month, he told reporters Thursday ... charges of racism and other forms of bigotry have plagued the group for years, making headlines as the organization's influence has spread. [33]
4. (Conservatives at Washington Examiner report on TPUSA racism) "To make matters worse, TPUSA has a troubling track record with racism.   The group claimed to have taken “decisive action” in removing the employee within 72 hours. But the racism within the organization didn’t stop there. Ironically, Kirk replaced his national field director with someone who had quite a bit of baggage of her own. In since-deleted tweets, the newly hired employee repeatedly used the N-word, bragged that “I love making racist jokes”, and stated that if you are “any other race than white”, she promises to “make racist jokes towards you.” Turning Point’s bad faith engagement goes beyond racial lines." [34]
5. (Even Fox News reports on TPUSA racism): "A prominent Christian pastor and author tearfully apologized this week for liking posts on social media by Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk which were considered racially insensitive." [35]
6. (NYTimes) Mr. Kashuv revealed on Twitter that the university this month rescinded its admission offer over a trail of derogatory and racist screeds.  Kyle Kashucv was high school outreach director for Turning Point USA, a conservative group with ties to the Trump family. [36]  
7. (Buzzfeed) Kyle Kashuv stepped down from his role with right-wing group Turning Point USA in May, just before the racist screenshots went public. [37] 
8. (USA Today) A viral video clip showing a member of the University of Nevada Las Vegas’s Turning Point USA chapter shouting “white power” and using a white supremacist hand sign has led the conservative group to ban him. [38]
9. (Huffington Post) Turning Point USA Keeps Accidentally Hiring Racists. “I love making racist jokes,” tweeted the woman who replaced the person who wrote, “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE.” [39]
10. (Daily Beast) Conservative Campus Org Turning Point USA ‘Rife’ With Racism, Possibly Illegal Campaign Activity [40]

There are many more reliable sources that report on the racism within Turning Point USA so including the reliable source's reports of racism within TPUSA does not violate any WP guidelines. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Request to remove personal information from the article titled "Saida Muna Tasneem"

Saida Muna Tasneem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Wikipedia Team,

This is Dewan Mahmaudul Haque, Counsellor (a senior diplomat) in the Bangladesh High Commission in London, UK. I would like to draw your kind attention to the fact about an account in Wikipedia which is by name of Saida Muna Tasneem, who is the Excellency High Commissioner of Bangladesh to the United Kingdom. As I work for her, she has instructed me to write to Wikipedia regarding her account on Wikipedia (which is a public information) wherein her personal information concerning her spouse has been published which has nothing to do with her official business and career. I edited the paragraph but it did not get published.

Now, Her Excellency Saida Muna Tasneem has instructed me to ask Wikipedia as to if her personal information concerning her spouse could be deleted and the reference as well. And please suggest how her edited profile can be locked so that no other private individual can edit it further.

If this is possible, she has humbly requested to kindly delete that particular paragraph and the corresponding reference from her Wikipedia account.

If that is not possible by Wikipedia, does she possess the right to tell Wikipedia to totally delete her account.

We shall greatly appreciate if you please respond.

Thank you. Dewan Mahmudul Haque Counsellor, Bangladesh High Commission, London writing on behalf of Her Excellency Saida Muna Tasneem High Commissioner of Bangladesh to the United Kingdom

Please note the link to her profile in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saida_Muna_Tasneem

And the specific paragraph she want's to delete from her Wikipedia profile is the follwoing:

"Career

Tasneem began working with the Bangladesh Foreign Service in 1993.[3]

While working as a senior consular official to Bangladesh's mission to the United Nations, on October 23, 2003,[5] her husband spent US$129,626 at a strip club in New York City on four credit cards. After news agencies began to report on the incident, the Bangladeshi Ministry of Foreign Affairs recalled Tasneem from her position on June 4, 2004, alerting her and Chaudhury to return to Bangladesh immediately.[6][7]"

--

With profound regards,

Dewan Mahmudul Haque Counsellor (Political) Bangladesh High Commission 28 Queen's Gate London SW7 5JA, UK Telephone: +44 20 7584 0081 Extn. 239 Cellular: +44 7944 211 077 E-mail: Dewan.M.Haque@mofa.gov.bd Web: www.bhclondon.org.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewan.M.Haque (talk • contribs) 12:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

For context, the full portions of the text with sources are:

She is married to Tauhidul Chaudhury.

While working as a senior consular official to Bangladesh's mission to the United Nations, on October 23, 2003, her husband spent US$129,626 at a strip club in New York City on four credit cards. After news agencies began to report on the incident, the Bangladeshi Ministry of Foreign Affairs recalled Tasneem from her position on June 4, 2004, alerting her and Chaudhury to return to Bangladesh immediately.

I agree that the allegations don't directly relate to the conduct of Saida Muna Tasneem herself, but they are worth mentioning, possibly in a more oblique form, as the allegations (aside from the NY Post), are well sourced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a case for including this material. I suppose if "oblique" means that we say "Tasneem was recalled from the UK her UN posting in 2004..." then fine -- but with no details or mention of the husband. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with something like "Tasneem was recalled from her UN posting in 2004, for issues not related to her conduct" would be fine as it would make clear that the recalling wasn't to do with her actions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Reasons

(Moved from article talk page) (And now moved back, since it was moved without permission and discussion of edits to the article belongs there.) @Hemiauchenia: Sorry about this edit summary, I was working on it and accidentally submitted. What I was planning to write was this: first, your addition is not supported by the source, it's your personal interpretation. Second, either the reason she was recalled is encyclopedic and should be discussed in her biography, or it's not. I happen to agree that it's not. But if it's not, then we shouldn't discuss it at all, rather than making vague and somewhat mysterious remarks about it. Nomoskedasticity's edit accomplished what needed to be done. --JBL (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Joel, try not to insult other editors additions to articles as "terrible", it is incredibly rude. Nomoskedasticity thanked the edit. I am not interested in being scolded and you should refrain from acting like this to editors in the future. Unkind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The reason I added it in the first place was to avoid casting unwarranted aspersions about a BLP subject, which is supported by the citation. The fact that you felt that it was appropriate to @ me to scold me and tell me I am "wrong" for trying to adhere to the BLP policy when you could have simply undone the edit and have been done with it is asinine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

RFC opened

For some no one informed this noticeboard that an RfC has now been opened Talk:Saida_Muna_Tasneem#RfC: Should the Saida Muna Tasneem article include the 2003-4 strip club incident?.Nil Einne (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

McKim, Mead and White

I have spent considerable time editing, correcting, and adding content to this article on a major American architecture firm--one of the most important of all firms. The previous article was an abomination. Even with my edits, the piece is messy, especially in the gallery section. It needs a good clean up from someone familiar with how to do that. I have tried to include most of the bibliographical essentials, but there are still books and articles missing that I could not reference easily. Wikipedians should recognize that a firm like this one has been given its due in the last several decades, following many years of neglect. Samuel G. White, one of Stanford's great grandsons, continues to write and publish on their legacy.Hewittarch (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

From the lead: "The scope and breadth of their achievement is astounding." I for one would definitely say the work of this firm is, indeed, astounding. However, I'm not sure that's what Wikipedia should be saying. There's a lot of that going on in this article. "...the city was dazzled" etc, etc. Ditch ∝ 20:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Does DAILYMAIL need a disclaimer, or even guidance on how it can be invoked?

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.

---

I've raised a general concern about DAILYMAIL on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, but there seems to be a specific concern in play too.

Does the conclusion of DAILYMAIL need to be made more specific that it is not an accusation or allegation against any identifiable individuals, that it is merely a presumption of inaccuracy in material identified from a particular source?

Or is it unavoidable that if you remove a specific piece of journalism from Wikipedia and you claim DAILYMAIL as your justification, you are in effect always accusing an identifiable individual of professional misconduct. Given the nature of mainstream journalism, mostly at least, is that any piece will always have an identifiable author and an identifiable editor, and to take it to its logical conclusion, an identifiable corporate officer responsible for ensuring its staff do not engage in professional misconduct.

If I were a journalist, editor or compliance officer, I would certainly be wondering if I should be engaging a lawyer to protect my reputation, if I saw the sort of statements I have seen being made about my work on Wikipedia, that are not based on any identifiable error in the work, but simply based on my choice of employer (or in the case of freelancers, who chose to buy my work).

I am thinking specififally about the Keith Blakelock incident, which is still there on the RS noticeboard, but it seems like it might be a broader issue. People obviously have the ability to sue anyone on Wikipedia for any reason, but it seems to get complicated when it can be reasonably said the harm is being caused by the collective act of Wikipedia editors. DAILYMAIL being the claimed consensus of Wikipedia editors.

While Wikipedia's corporate owner can't be sued for such statements until they stand by them, it might cause them an issue in situations where they are perhaps asked to take down a statement, and have to decide how much of that statement was a reasonable interpretation of DAILYMAIL, and how much was the editor's own personal view, and therefore how exposed they are if they were to decline. It may not even matter, if it can be shown that DAILYMAIL arose out of a lack of ensuring volunteer editors act responsibly in their collective decision making.

Perhaps a solution is to add a restriction on individual editors in DAILYMAIL that says they may only remove material with DAILYMAIL as a justification if their actions are explained through specifically quoting (or reasonably describing) the conclusion of DAILYMAIL, and any deviation means their comment shall become their sole personal opinion, if not in its entirety, then for all the deviating parts. Brian K Horton (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Brian K Horton, is this a legal threat? — Newslinger talk 12:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the reason for your question. Brian K Horton (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Legal threats are prohibited on Wikipedia, so if your comment contains a legal threat, I would need to ask you to revise or retract those parts of the comment. ​— Newslinger talk 12:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's a reasonable reading of my comment. Brian K Horton (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly reasonable reading of your "comment", since it's just a warmed-over rehash of your failed FUD attempt at WP:RSN. Your logic convinced no one there, and rephrasing and moving it to different forum won't help. --Calton | Talk 15:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to take any measure to defend the Wikimedia Foundation from perceived legal risk beyond what is required in Wikipedia:List of policies § Legal. If you have a legal question, the Wikimedia Foundation accepts legal questions and requests by email and by physical mail. — Newslinger talk 14:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused. We already had two very lengthy RfCs regarding the deprecation of the Daily Mail, and WP:DAILYMAIL even gives guidance on how it can be invoked. Certainly editors can invoke policies wrongly, something I've done myself in the past, but the policy itself still stands.

Claims of WP:LIBEL, WP:COPYVIO and WP:COI are actionable on Wikipedia, as they relate to (respectively) libelous statements added specifically about a certain real-life person, copyright violations and infringements, and conflict-of-interest edits or editors who are editing specifically with an ulterior motive and without following Wikipedia policies - note that declared COI editors can edit in-line with policy, and aren't automatically taken down.

However, WP:DAILYMAIL is targeted at the source on the whole - not a specific editor or writer. Some Daily Mail articles don't even have a named writer on them, and I'd assume staff turnover would mean that if WP:DAILYMAIL applied to specific authors, you'd end up with a very long list of They Used To Write For The Daily Mail and Therefore Aren't Reliable editors you'd have to chase up. You can see how a neat little package of DailyMail threads could turn into a rampant, spread-out mess the minute one writer left or went elsewhere.

It's also pointed out in the first RfC that the Mail is reliable for some things - historically, it had a greater reliability than it does now, whatever that reliability was or currently is. A key sentence from the end result of the RfC is that:

There are multiple thousands of existing citations to the Daily Mail. Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate. [Emphasis mine]

As the above quote emphasises - there may be situations in which it is inappropriate to remove a Mail link. This is, of course, the key definition between a banned source and a deprecated one. I'd assume that would count for something, perhaps.

As per WP:LEGAL, pleas to have libelous, copyright infringing, and conflict of interest edits taken down are usually respected, if they're valid and put through the right channels; general legal threats, however, are not. If it doesn't count as specific libel, a copyright infringement, or a conflict of interest edit, then it just isn't going to be actioned unless, I suppose, the Wikimedia Foundation feels it's serious enough for something a little more ground-breaking to happen.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

On a point of fact, an extraordinarily large amount of DAILYMAIL focuses on one readily identifiable person and ties its findings to their decisions, decisions they would presumably make at any other title they worked for, given their incredibly successful results at the Mail. It doesn't really hold water that people aren't meant to assume DAILYMAIL isn't about people as much as it is content. That is what is meant by culture, after all. Quite a lot of it was about the morality of accepting a job at the Mail, what that says about you as a journalist, and a person. And that's one of the few parts of the debate where anyone was actually discussing something other than their own opinion. Conclusions are easily drawn. Brian K Horton (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The only question I have, is if you're trying to gaslight me. It took a while, but I have now satisfied myself that my post is an entirely legitimate one for this noticeboard, precisely because it concerns whether or not Wikipedia editors are properly complying with "Wikipedia policies with legal implications". And I think you knew that, just as I think you probably already knew at RSN that it is infact Wikipedia policy that a consensus is invalid if reasonable concerns were not addressed. Brian K Horton (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my previous comment, your legal inquiry should be directed to the Wikimedia Foundation. If the Wikimedia Foundation determines that the community needs to take certain actions for legal reasons, they will directly inform us. Your arguments in WP:RSN § Is it a problem that Wikipedia's own article on the Mail doesn't seem to justify depreciation as a source? failed to gain traction with other editors, and attempting to achieve the same objective in a different noticeboard is forum shopping. — Newslinger talk 16:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This second attempt at casting FUD should be hatted, and brand-new editor Brian K Horton (talk · contribs) should have more experience than 13 entire edits before making sweeping proposals again. --Calton | Talk 15:27, 21 June 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.

Tyrell Robinson

• Tyrell Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

According to sources he "admitted engaging in sexual activity with a child, making an indecent image of a child and distributing an indecent image of a child". Are the categories regarding his 'conviction' therefore strictly accurate? Also requesting input from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law. GiantSnowman 15:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

According to the source that affirms he admitted - in a court setting - to these, he will be sentenced on these at at a later date, so that's basically a conviction for all purposes. Seems appropriate here. --Masem (t) 16:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

If he plead guilty, that's a conviction. Sentencing can be done later. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Sharon Mitchell

The person listed on Wikipedia as Dr. Sharon Mitchell is a former porn actress, and is not a Doctor of anything. She has never attended an accredited educational institution of any kind, at any time. She was involved in an unaccredited and questionable organization, which was allegedly funded by Porn's Mitchell Brothers. She claimed to have gotten a medical degree from this organization, which, of course, is not accredited to issue degrees of any kind. I knew Sharon Mitchell for many years. I doubt she ever graduated from High School. Yet many in the general population believe that she is a medical doctor because someone uploaded that false claim on Wikipedia. it's about time that Wikipedia began fact checking information that is uploaded to its data base. My name is Shaun Costello, and I know the aforementioned to be absolutely true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:702:4200:38E0:FCFB:7192:9456:3F12 (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times article used as a source in the article states that the subject "went back to school for a doctorate in human sexuality", and refers to her as "Dr." throughout. I think we can safely say that the New York Times reported such. I'll put the claim into a quote. BD2412 T 16:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to believe the New York Times and The Lancet did their appropriate fact checking over the musings of Mr. Shaun Costello. The quotes are not necessary as it's not a controversial statement of opinion but rather than mundane facts. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed the honorific, but not because it was disputed. We don't usually use forms of address like this in article text. Ditch ∝ 19:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Saying "I doubt she ever graduated from high school," is, while your opinion, which is fine for you to hold, at best, not very nice, and at worst, a BLP violation in and of itself. Considering the source for this is the New York times, I wonder if you should strike this now faced with pretty solid evidence to the contrary? Ditch ∝ 22:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The article doesn't call her a doctor. It does say that she "obtained a MA and Ph.D. from the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality". This links to Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, an article that starts "The Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality (est. 1976) was an unaccredited, for-profit, degree-granting institution and resource center in the field of sexology located in San Francisco, California"; and it continues to give the impression that the "institute" and its degrees were near worthless. So how about a change to "obtained a MA and Ph.D. from the (unaccredited and now defunct) Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality"? (Or are the NYT and Lancet instead referring to a real PhD, obtained elsewhere?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

We do not need to press that caveat into the article per WP:NPOV. People can easily review the Institute wikilink and form their own opinion whether the degree is worthless. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality" is a name curiously (and perhaps with deliberate deceptiveness) reminiscent of "Institute for Advanced Study". Compare our treatment of Gillian McKeith's putatively academic background:

She claims to have received an MA in holistic nutrition in 1994 and a PhD in that same field in 1997, both via distance-learning programmes from the non-accredited American Holistic College of Nutrition, later the Clayton College of Natural Health in Birmingham, Alabama (but since closed). She is a member of the American Association of Nutritional Consultants, but this association runs no checks on the qualifications of its certified members, permitting Ben Goldacre to register his dead cat for the same qualification as McKeith.

Of course, "other crap exists", but the McKeith article is s-protected and its content has been laboriously discussed, as its talk archive will show. -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Other crap does exist but this biography should state what the sources directly say about the subject rather than introduce commentary or caveat through synthesis. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I've advertised this discussion here. -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

If a biography indicates that someone has an academic degree and that degree is from an unaccredited institution then that needs to be included, too; to naively and credulously include unaccredited academic degrees as if they are equivalent to degrees from accredited institutions would be a disservice to our readers and an NPOV issue for editors. Of course, we must also be careful to ensure that the information is properly sourced and accurate especially in instances where an institution's accreditation status has changed over time as there are certainly examples of people who received degrees from institutions that were accredited at the time but later lost that accreditation. And unless the reliable sources point us in a different direction we must also be careful to not add our own commentary or judgement e.g., don't assume or state that an institution that is unaccredited is inherently and incontrovertibly "bad," "illegitimate," or a "diploma mill." Unless there are reliable sources that make those kinds of claims, it's usually sufficient to simply state that the institution is or was unaccredited.

I am also assuming that if someone's academic degree(s) are noteworthy enough to include a biography and they're from an unaccredited institution, especially if the institution is not legitimate or the degree is a fraud, there are reliable sources that clearly state that. If there aren't then the odds seem pretty good that something somewhere has gone wrong i.e., the person isn't really notable enough for a Wikipedia article, the degree isn't noteworthy enough to include in the article, we're mistaken about the status of the institution or degree. ElKevbo (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The lack of accreditation only needs to be mentioned if the sources comment on that without synthesis. The cited sources about her doctorate do not.[41][42] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You've made your position abundantly clear in the comments you've already posted above; please give other editors space to share their views and discuss this issue. ElKevbo (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it merits mention unless the source mentions it, otherwise its akin to synth. Interested readers can explore the refs provided if they so desire. Sorry, didn't realize I was parroting Morbid's thoughts until I fixed the indent, but will let the comment stand. Ditch ∝ 02:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Kira Dikhtyar

Does not have citations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.114.213 (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Then you're free to look for and add some. If on the other hand you believe that the article should be deleted, then get a user ID, make some constructive edits while logged in under it, and then follow this, of course after reading and familiarizing yourself with the relevant policies. -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Karol Sikora

Getting a bit concerned with this article. Someone with a clear disagreememt with the subject has been canvassing on Twitter to get the page edited, reinsterting a variety of grab-bag tabloidesque 'controversies'. The talkpage also contains borderline libellous, unsourced statements regarding 'rumours' left by an IP some years ago - clearly a few things going on here.

I am trying to get the article into a reasonable state overall. No connection with the subject.Svejk74 (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the above represents a significant misrepresentation of what's been happening on this article. Svejk74 has been doing a lot of editing of the article over the past month, and a lot of their edits seem to have had the effect of minimising and removing some of the controversial statements and actions of the subject of the article. I think that a fair representation of the recent media statements of the subject is possible, but Svejk74's consistent editing of the article has undoubtedly attracted the attention of people concerned with the direction of their edits. I noticed someone asking Wikipedia editors to look at the edit history of the page on Twitter, which is perfectly in keeping with the guidelines on canvassing, and I put back in some of the references to controversial statements made by the subject. I would also appreciate other neutral editors taking a look at the article and discussion on the talk page and giving their opinion on the discussion there. Jwslubbock (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

There's been no intention of minimising controversial issues; indeed I've expanded and clarified some points (e.g. his genuinely controversial views on NHS reform) where this seemed appropriate.

What I object to is the curating of various disparate news mentions over the years under the heading 'controversies' even if the stories themselves were one-off mentions. That is what's happened here, and the previous wording made the article perilously close to an attack piece, hence why I fixed it. Random news mentions without career context do not a bio make.

"I noticed someone asking Wikipedia editors to look at the edit history of the page on Twitter"; what you neglect to mention is that this person was throwing around intemperate rubbish like "Shipman"; "someone should investigate his oncology work"; and immediately assuming my edits were paid. This isn't mere "concern" and I note we have already now had some IP vandalism - perhaps as a result of this very pointed way of directing people to the bio.

Svejk74 (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Graham Linehan concerning subject's comments about transgender related issues

Editors with experience in applying WP:BLP are requested to weigh in at the following RfC:

Talk:Graham_Linehan#RfC on heading on Linehan's activities in relation to transgender causes and people

Crossroads ^-talk- 13:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Jan Joosten (biblical scholar)

Jan Joosten (biblical scholar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article should be locked so that its subject stops taking out references to his recent conviction for possessing child pornography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enheduanna13 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Enheduanna13:, such requests are generally handles at the requests for page protection noticeboard. I took a look, and there is definitely a multi-sided edit war going on so I went ahead and requested it myself. In the future, you'll probably get a quicker response there. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Do not attribute edits to particular people without evidence. In general, do not claim a particular account belongs to a particular person. Mcfnord (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Keith Davidson

Keith Davidson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sometime ago I came across the Keith Davidson BLP article. It is one of the longest Wikipedia BLP articles I had ever seen. I believed that this page has BLP issues including:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)

The article read as an attack page IMO. It was not and is still not objective. It contained unimportant but embarrassing "facts." It used judgmental language, gave undue weight to one source, and used extreme depth of detail to defame the article's subject. In addition, the article's structure, use of images, subtitles, quotes, hearsay, and expressions of doubt are unbalanced.

• Verifiability (V) & Reliable Sources

It contains circumstantial detail that is not properly supported, and is primarily based on one article from The Smoking Gun. The BLP is mainly a paraphrasing of the Smoking Gun article which was referenced 40+ times in January 2020 version. Also, the citations for the Smoking Gun article were divided into 4 different references - all titled differently, which made it look as if there were more sources for the article than there were. (It is hard to have good faith that this was done to reference page numbers when an article is so heavily weighted on one reference.) Approximately 50% of the remaining text (after edits) still relies on this one source - much of which is primary information.

@SJP89: I split the TSG article's references into four separate ones because the article itself is on four separate pages which the reader has to click through. If I linked only the first one, readers would justly claim the source didn't verify the article because the information referenced could not be found at the other end of the link. I would think that most editors would figure this out, but it seems there's an exception to everything.

@Daniel Case: Of course I knew what you were doing - but it was formatted in a way that made it look like they were separate sources. That in combination with the bias - made me question if that really was the reason why. And speaking of good faith, since you are of such high status - surely you should be giving me the benefit of the doubt?

And yet again you have failed to assume good faith ... if you had done that, you would have realized this and not maliciously and baseless imputed some sort of sinister motive to me.

I also do not see how the TSG article is "mostly primary information" ... while TSG as a site made its name by posting primary documents (which we have cited without complaint in other articles; you may cite primary sources as long as you do not offer any interpretation of your own. Most of it is the author's accounts of interviews with Davidson and others, as well as documents which support his claims. Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Because of this, I tagged the article with relevant templates. I commented on the Talk Page. I then proceeded to make edits to neutralize the tone and depth of detail of the article. I also requested additional sources for information currently only supported by the TSG article. Within 12 hours of beginning edits, I have been threatened and admonished by the page's main editor - a long standing Wikipedia admin. I am asking for other editor's help and opinions on the page (as it stands now) after hours of editing. And for assistance in resolving the accusations and threats from the author. Your help is appreciated. SJP89 (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)SJP89

Which of Daniel Case's comments do you take as a threats and accusations? I don't see any in the talk page discussion or on your talk page. The request that you revert your unsupported COI accusations or the editor will raise the issue on an appropriate noticeboard is not a threat, it's a warning. Schazjmd (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

And consider that warning more seriously given now. Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Instead of helping me with editing the page Daniel Case continues to bully me in his responses here, on the talk page, and on another page I edited. Even after, as he requested, I removed the COI and explained why I put it there. This is bullying. It is threatening because as an admin he has power.

I would really like to move the conversation back to the article itself and see how everyone feels about the lack of reliable sources and removing information sourced solely by the Smoking Gun. SJP89 (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)SJP89

I still have questions about the reliability of The Smoking Gun as a dominate source for this article but I believe over the last few days - many of the issues on the page have been resolved. Removing the BLP tag from the page. Thank you to those who contributed. SJP89 (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)SJP89

I agree that TSG article should not be the sole source for major claims, because they clearly just took the subject's word on many things. Mcfnord (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Dominick Mitchell

Would a BLP expert please have a look at Dominick Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a newly-created page, which as well as requiring copyediting for formatting issues, uses a number of non-compliant sources. It was drafted on a User page of an account with no other edits. It may be perfectly legit, but may also fail WP:GNG. Thanks (and sorry, BLP isn' my area of expertise), Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty obviously a vanity article. Start by deleting sections making claims not supported by independent reliable sources (I have made a start), and then see what's left. I suspect it would then end up ar WP:AFD. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. I AFD'd it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

And it got speedy deleted before that really got started. Job done. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Parth Samthaan

Parth Samthaan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's a bit of a dispute on this article around some accusations that were made today by someone else involving sexuality claims and a FIR/police report about molestation charges. of the edit in question (sources for all of this in diff). Some of the sources used aren't top quality, but several are solid and additional good source can be found for basically everything there. There's a start of a talk page discussion, but both sides are talking past each other, and there are some additional sources. The first issue are the claims made via Instagram post by Vikas Gupta - statement about Samthaan's sexuality and semi-veiled allegation of blackmail. In all of the sources I've read, the story is basically here's the Instagram post, restate what's there and that's about it. My thought on this is that this is a form of WP:BLPSELFPUB - the claims are from Gupta, the sources aren't doing anything but repeating what was said. Samthaan hasn't responded that I can see, so no declaration from them about their sexuality. Given that, I don't think any direct statement should be in the article. I'm not even sure if the sources, right now, support even a general statement about Gupta's social media posts. It feels mostly gossipy, but these are serious accusations about harassment that have been made and have fairly wide reporting (in the past few days, at least). There are also some articles from 2018 where Samthaan sued Gupta [43]. No idea how that turned out.

The second issue is the FIR (think police report) against Samthaan for molestation back in 2017. There are some responses from Samthaan around that time and some later source show that Samthaan was arrested [44] I've done some searching and I'm not finding anything on the resolution of this case. Samthaan should meet WP:PUBLICFIGURE, but given the lack of updates and minimal discussion outside of gossip / society pages, I don't think this belongs either. Thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome! Ravensfire (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

If covered, it should include his response, that the claims are "false and baseless". I also cannot find any resolution, and in that link he claims the charges were dropped after a police investigation. Mcfnord (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Ferdinand Leon

• Ferdinand Leon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I attended UCLA with Ferdinand Leon. If my memory is correct, he was there from 1955 to 1959. I believe he was a French major. I believe he was born on February 29, 1936, in New Orleans, LA. Plese fact check me and let me know the results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anita Blyth (talk • contribs) 16:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Anita Blyth: are we talking about the correct person here? Our article on Ferdinand Leon is about a Black TV writer born in 1922... GiantSnowman 16:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The sourcing on birth date in that article is weak, and the latter birthdate being suggested is at least more in line with breaking into TV writing in 1968 and with writing a book that was scheduled for publication in 2014 (although I find no record of such a book.) 1922 is not impossible, but the rare 1936 birthdate is more in line. So Anita may be right, we may be wrong, but I don't know what source to look at to verify. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

George Magan, Baron Magan of Castletown

• George Magan, Baron Magan of Castletown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Paulsmith996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A new editor Paulsmith996 is removing content from the legal issues section of the George Magan, Baron Magan of Castletown article. The articles content is sourced to Independent.ie and the Irish Times and concerns his financial struggles and legal battle over the estate he was living on. The removal cites the entries to be "erroneous or misleading" and "relates to ongoing litigation". Can experienced BLP editors have a look to see whether these concerns are valid? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Upon my (American) cursory review, I could not identify specific errors or misleading claims, though the situation is complex. Regarding ongoing litigation, that could be the case, but I consider verdicts as reported in the NPOV press to be among Wikipedia's most repeatable claims, as very neutral primary source conclusions within conflicts. Not sure if two of the claims about rent are part of the same situation, possibly meriting condensing. Mcfnord (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Dino Costa

Can someone please cast their eye over the Dino Costa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. Bit of a new one for me having being an editor for fifteen years but I have somehow gotten myself as an 'involved party' by trying to explain on Costa Dino's talk page that he shouldn't edit war if he takes issue with the material within the article itself after he emailed me. He's taken an issue with the claim of plagiarism (which is sourced). Despite not heeding my advice IPs started edit warring today and I semi-protected the page. Just received an email from Costa to his lawyer stating I'm authorizing you to take whatever action against this individual "GLEN", and the Wikipedia organization, for slander and defamation of character. *sigh*. I'll alert WP to the legal threat but in the meantime would appreciate some uninvolved eyeballs on the article. Thanks. Glen 09:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The person behind the biography is reported by all sources to be extremely combative, so the response you experienced is par for the course. He gets his fame from being angry and abrasive on the radio. I don't expect the subject of the biography will ever be happy with a neutral summary of the literature. Binksternet (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no comment on any of this but I would encourage a discussion of awfulannouncing.com at RSN given it's a fanblog. It does not strike me as a particularly reliable source wrt WP:BLP. Praxidicae (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, Binksternet noted. I'll remove the plagiarism assertion while under dispute until clarity around the RS can be determined. Interestingly that site is sourced 11 times on the ESPN+ article though obviously not BLP. I'm stepping away from this now as my inbox is full of increasingly more threatening emails and whilst I'm not in the slightest but concerned I want Costa Dino to start communicating onwiki instead of emailing a barrage of threats to an editor. I have no issues anyone reverting my edit on the page - especially if a better source can be found. Cheers. Glen 20:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

AwfulAnnouncing.com is used as a reference in a bunch of sports radio articles: 2015 World Series, Criticism of ESPN, Get Up! (TV program), Tom Hart (sportscaster), Jon Sciambi, Mike Tirico, Major League Baseball on television in the 2010s, ESPN Megacast, Matt Yallof and many, many more. Dan Levy (journalist) is a staff writer at Awful Announcing. At Talk:2017 World Series/GA1, Muboshgu said it was a respected industry source. I don't see any discussions concluding that it was not neutral. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, thanks for the input. I'm not going to touch the article again for my own sanity (and the sanity of my inbox!) but will leave with you and other more competent editors than I in this arena to make the changes. I won't consider reversions to my edit edit warring goes without saying. Thanks again. Glen 20:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Captain Tom

Captain Tom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:86.21.249.196 persists in restoring uncited claims to Captain Tom, about the subject and other living people, despite warnings on the IPs talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Paul Anka

I have done a RFC for this but decided to post it here as well.

A consensus needs to be reached about how to state what Paul Anka has said in his autobiography about his origins. In page 11 of his book he states his parents were of Lebanese Christian DESCENT. He also said that with his own words in minute 3.25- 4:30 of his interview archived in NPR.org with link https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4793881?storyId=4793881&t=1593052812491 he was of Lebanese descent not of Syrian nor Syrian and Lebanese descent. When someone is of Lebanese descent it means his/her ancestors come from Lebanon.

Further in the same page 11 of his autobiography Anka says "in the small town in Syria called Bab Touma-where my ancestors came from" the told event with his grandfather and granduncle happened and "his grandparents immigrated to Canada" from there to escape revenge.

Since he first states his parents are of Lebanese descent the above statement has to mean that his grandparents moved from Lebanon to this small town in Syria, lived there and then immigrated to Canada after the incident. He stated his ancestors CAME from there (as CAME to Canada from there) not that they COME from there meaning originated from.

As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Using_sources Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. Also as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoting_out_of_context

User George Al-Shami is trying to merge his two statements in a way that implicates as if he is of Syrian descent and not of Lebanese descent as stated by Anka. He then goes on and adds less notable sources that say he is of Syrian descent to support his merge. Al-Shami also added his own original research by adding that the Bab Touma in Syria mentioned by Anka is the old district inside the city of Damascus when Paul Anka states that the Bab Touma where his ancestors came to Canada from is a SMALL TOWN in Syria

(For what is worth, since he stated his parents are of Lebanese descent, that small town of Bab Touma could even be Mar Touma in Ottoman Syria (modern-day Lebanon) but of course he didnt say Mar Touma so this is just my own original research to try to make sense of the two "seemingly contradictory" statements)

User George Al-Shami has previously quoted "exact" statements from sources in order to implicate Syrian descent of Queen Noor of Jordan's grandfather Elias Halaby when that Syrian descent has been put in question by experts such as Henry Louis Gates through his expertise and research. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Najeeb_Halaby#Najeeb_Halaby_Lebanese_Origins for this previous discussion.Chris O' Hare (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

User Chris O' Hare removes Syrian ancestry from that person's background, even when it is backed by the totality of credible sources; and when credible sources state the person has both ancestries.

1) On March 24 he adds a New York Times source to Najeeb Halaby's article that states he is Lebanese/Syrian and adds the nationalistic designation "Lebanese", which I don't object to, because it's referenced with a credible source, the NYT.

Here's the diff

2) Then on March 26, 2020 after seeing that no one objected to his addition of "Lebanese" and his NYT source which refers to Halaby as "Lebanese/Syrian", he removes the national designation "Syrian"; even though that's what his chosen source states; this will clearly show that the said editor is not making edits in good faith.

:Here's the diff 

3) He brings up the PBS Henry Gates source to dispel what the NYT source and his memoir stated, so I explained to Chris O' Hare that this is against Wiki policy to engage in WP:OR. Henry Gates's research found that Najeeb's great-grandfather was born in Damascus, but it does not specify which city the family hails from. Najeeb's memoir states that his grandfather was born in Zahle, however his daughter contradicts that in her memoir and says that he was not born in Zahle, he lived there for a number of years; however both sources state that their family hails from the city of Aleppo, Syria.

He introduces Najeeb's memoir source that states his grandfather was born in Zahle (a town in modern-day Lebanon) and he uses that to claim that Najeeb is only from "Lebanese" ancestry....now on the next line of the very source that Chris O' Hare is using it says that Najeeb's family is from Aleppo, (a large city in modern-day Syria). So, I returned the "Syrian" national designation and kept the "Lebanese" designation, because both memoir sources state Syrian and Lebanese ancestry and remarked to Chris O' Hare that it is very deceptive to use one line from his memoir and then ignore the other line just to back his POV and remove "Syrian" ancestry from the article, even though the memoir source that Chris O' Hare is using states that.

I am willing to collaborate and improve the sentence flow of the biography section and make it more harmonious to the reader, but, if not for an agenda, it is not clear why the said editor keeps removing "Syrian" from the different wiki articles on Syrian-Lebanese people. Conversely I am not the one who is removing "Lebanese" from the article; I always strived to keep both when the totality of sources maintain the ancestries from both countries. George Al-Shami (talk)

References

Najeeb Halaby father of Queen Noor of Jordan

Ongoing discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Najeeb_Halaby#Najeeb_Halaby_Lebanese_Origins. User George Al-Shami is quoting sources with the intention to implicate Syrian descent of these two personalities ignoring that this has been later questioned by experts such as Henry Louis Gates. Input is needed on how to best state the ancestral origins of these two personalities

User George Al-Shami is also using sources in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context for the same purpose. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Anka#Paul_Anka's_Lebanese_descent_in_his_autobiography_and_own_words_in_radio_interview.Chris O' Hare (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

My goodness, what untruthful statements. Henry Louis Gates did not "question" his "Syrian" nor his "Lebanese" ancestry; I read the whole Gates source (21 pages in total), he concludes that his research couldn't find out where Elias' family (that's Lisa'a great-grandfather) is from.

Again, false allegation, Chris introduces Anka's memoir, which is a credible source and removes the "Syrian" designation (a pattern of his, if you check the recent history of his edits), because Anka states on line that he is from Lebanese ancestry; but then the said editor ignores what Anka says on the following line that his family hails from Damascus, Syria; to ignore what the source says in the following sentence is not "consistent" with the source.

Among the 3 sources I added, is the 1960 Life magazine source, where Life had interviewed and quoted from Anka's father, which said on page 68 of the magazine The only place Paul was not an immediate international success was with his Syrian father, Andrew Anka, whose parents came from Damascus. If one reads the entire article, one will find specific quotes from Paul and his father. George Al-Shami (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Martie Maguire

Martie Maguire "Early life... and younger half-brother, R&B singer Ian Daviz, born in 1996." I don't believe this is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:132F:2A3:50D9:4D08:1B69:72F8 (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced material from that paragraph. —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Bessel van der Kolk

I am not familiar with BLP policies, but a BLP is currently getting reverts/re-reverts over van der Kolk's dismissal from previous role, he then announced legal action and nothing since can be independently confirmed re: unfair dismissal case, claim of being on sabbatical at the time he was dismissed, and possible settlement, loyalty of previous staff to him, amount of out of court settlement back in 2018. Have posted my concerns on Talk:Bessel_van_der_Kolk but no response from those editors, one of who is anonymous. I am not sure what to revert / if to revert. But fairly sure potential defamation/libel is being posted/re-posted. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Amousey, there is some epic resume-padding going on at that article right now. There are also red flags as his work has been cited by "recovered memory" cranks. Guy (help!) 05:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Wendy Mesley‎‎

anon made a series of edits to the article that are unsubstantiated and possibly offensive . I believe that they constitute a BLP for the subject and could be offensive to others. They should be deleted or at least hidden to all but admin oversight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Pavan Sukhdev

The article for Pavan Sukhdev, the former head of the World Wildlife Fund reads like a resume and is in need of significant trimming, if anyone is interested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

[Edith Brown Weiss]

Corrections and edits to the entry in English for Edith Brown Weiss. The correct current title for Edith Brown Weiss is: University Professor Georgetown University. She is referred to in the Wikipedia article as Brown. The orrect name reference would be Brown Weiss. She was the Chairperson of the Inspection Panel at the World Bank, from 2003-2007, an appointment at the level of World Bank Vice President. She is also a Judge on the Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund and former President of the Administrative Tribunal of the InterAmerican Development Bank. She did NOT work for the United States National Academy of Sciences but served on the commissions and boards that are mentioned in the entry. Her most recent book publication is Establishing Norms in a Kaleidoscopic World (Brill/Nijhoff 2020), which is a pocketbook of The Hague Academy of International Law.