Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

J. K. Rowling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: J. K. Rowling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The Guardian article says this [10]

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

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

• NBC says this: [11]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ReDraft 3

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

Option 1E

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b.) Thanks for the advice re claimed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutral sources on the J.K. Rowling matter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rosianne Cutajar

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

Claim about David Patterson (historian)

An experianced and very respected editor and Wikipedia administrator made a claim on Holocaust denial talk page while discussing a Patterson's book (isbn=978-1-107-04074-8) published by Cambridge University Press. The claim is Patterson essentially equates Islam with "Jihadism" and claims that the extermination of Jews is inherent in the Sharia. in this diff. Does WP:BLPTALK apply? Can someone review and remove if the claim found as inappropriate. Thank you. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight: you didn't think it at least courteous to notify User:Zero0000? That comment was over a week ago. Pinging the others involved in this discussion @The Four Deuces, Buidhe, and El C:. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not involved in the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 09:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Nor am I. El_C 09:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Infinity Knight, what I see on that page is a thorough analysis by Zero0000 that shows your preferred content to be incorrect and bordering on tendentious. Your best bet here is to thank Zero for his diligence and helping you to avoid a gross error. Guy (help!) 12:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

To start with, the BLP rules are not intended to prevent us from arguing that a source is unreliable. Without the ability to discuss the reliability of sources, we cannot do our work as policy requires of us. In this particular case, I already gave a source for my comments on the talk page, and I repeated on the talk page that I had given a source before ∞K filed this report. The source is a review of Patterson by Jay Geller (Professor of Modern Jewish Culture at Vanderbilt University). For those who can't see past the paywall, here is the pertinent passage: "Though he states that 'Jihadism' is only a 'perversion' of Islam (p. 38), he all but identifies Islam with it. When discussing Jihadi torture he states: 'The question remains as to whether Islam can de-Sharia itself: Is it possible for a Muslim to object to the torture prescribed by Sharia in the name of Sharia? If not, then it is impossible for a Muslim to oppose either Jew hatred or torture. One goes with the other' (p167). Since Patterson gives no instance of an Islamic objection to torture, the reader may assume that so long as Muslims, whether self-described Jihadis or not, follow Sharia, they will ultimately sanction genocide in general and the extermination of the Jews specifically." Geller doesn't stop there, but what I have quoted is enough to see that what I wrote is almost verbatim from my source.

Nor did I base my opinion only on Geller's review. I examined another of Patterson's books "Anti-semitism and its Meta-Physical Origins" and found it to have an extended diatribe on Islam (and Christianity) with the most weak allowance you can imagine that not all Muslims or Christians are genocidal. Another academic reviewer writes that Patterson comes from a Jewish-fundamentalist viewpoint, believing that "anti-Semitism is rooted in the anti-Semites’ desire to become like God themselves, and that by killing the Jews — God’s witnesses — they are killing God...". And, again, "the existence of God and more precisely the God of Judaism, in assuming the existence of the soul, the truth of the revelation to the prophets of Judaism, the truth of the Jewish holy scriptures (the Torah, Talmud, Midrash, etc.), the truth of the claim that the Jews are the chosen people, the truth of the narrative of the Jews’ mission, that they are chosen for the absolute ethical responsibility, the truth of the claim that Israel is the land of the chosen people and that the Jews have a special connection to God through this holy land, that Hebrew is the holy tongue, that we all descend from Adam, etc. These all form a set of premises presumed to be true throughout the book." (Jews who don't believe such things are "self-hating" or "anti-semitic Jews".) I could go on, but this is too long already. Is this the sort of work we want to use as a source on Muslims? Zero^talk 14:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The posting seems to accurately reflect Patterson's position. If it doesn't, then perhaps someone could recommend a better phrasing. TFD (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

We should exercise caution when discussing living people. In the first one, it says "... he states that 'Jihadism' is only a 'perversion' of Islam..." so I guess that we could say something like "Patterson says that 'Jihadism' is a 'perversion' of Islam, however Geller says that Patterson essentially equates Islam with "Jihadism" attributing opinions properly. Zero Thank you for providing the quotes. Infinity Knight (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000:, would you be willing to amend your claim on the article talk page? Infinity Knight (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight: There is a difference between article space and talk space. In David Patterson my personal opinion would forbidden and all opinions would have to be properly attributed as well as sourced. In talk space on the other hand, it is normal practice to express personal opinions on why sources are reliable or unreliable. Complete attribution would amount to adding "in my opinion" but I think everyone can see that implicitly. I'm not saying that there are no boundaries, which is why I carefully restricted my statement to those opinions that could be justified by reference to reliable sources and Patterson's own words. If this was a forum, I would quote more of Patterson and state stronger opinions about it. But it's not a forum so I only went far enough to make a case for unreliability. Zero^talk 07:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000: The BLP policy applies to any living person mentioned, including talk pages. Since Patterson explicitly denied, the claim should be amended. Infinity Knight (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Infinity Knight, it is important to understand that there exists a clear distinction between claims of a personal nature regarding a living person and opinions regarding the published works of an author who so happens to still be alive. It wasn't necessary for Zero to have said something like "In my opinion, Patterson essentially equates..." - it is already obvious that this is his opinion, we don't need him to tell us this. Also, he did include the word ' essentially ', which acknowledges that Patterson made no such statement overtly, but that that is his interpretation of what Patterson said. Again, (and like Zero already said as well in this discussion), it is already clearly his opinion, thus we do not need him to say "in my opinion" at the beginning of each sentence.

In short: discussions about sources are not the same thing as statments about living persons, regardless of whether or not the authors of sources are living. If WP:BLP meant that editors are barred from discussing the reliability of sources except ones with deceased authors, the entire project would be unable to function. Firejuggler86 (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The only thing I can consider doing (in fact, don't mind anyone doing) is copying the quotes from the two reviewers to the relevant talk page. Then readers can see the whole story. But I don't see how it would improve anyone's view of Patterson's writing to see the criticism in the words of highly qualified reviewers rather than as my opinion. Zero^talk 02:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Zero, please keep in mind, BLP applies also to talk pages. So your view that There is a difference between article space and talk space... In talk space on the other hand, it is normal practice to express personal opinions on why sources are reliable or unreliable... should have a disclaimer. Expressing your opinion is OK as long as it does not violate WP:BLP. Infinity Knight (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

• Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:BLPCRIME effectively prohibits the naming of low-profile individuals who have not been convicted of "a" (I interpret this as 'the') crime.

Does this extend to naming someone already convicted of 'a' similar crime, but not 'the' crime in question? I removed the offending text in Special:Diff/965810697, which was reverted twice by the editor who initially added it Special:Diff/965821327. Christian Bruckner is serving time as a convicted sexual offender for other offences. But he has not been convicted of this sexual offence / possible murder. He's under investigation and a suspect, but he hasn't even been charged.

Therefore, my question is, is it indeed a violation of WP:BLPCRIME to name a low-profile individual convicted of a similar, but unrelated, offence? They're indeed innocent of this offence, currently. My view would be that BLPCRIME does extend to such cases as well, even if he were charged, otherwise we'd be setting dangerous and shaky precedent, but it'd be nice to clarify the matter for the record. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This has already been discussed on the article's talk page and the consensus is to include the name. Further consensus should be gained there if you want to remove it. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Lard Almighty, there is no consensus on the article talk page, and talk consensus never overrides the BLP policy even if there were. The closest to a discussion is here, and this doesn't address the BLP policy at all, nor did it receive much participation - no other editors clearly agreed with you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There is. There was a discussion on whether to include the name and it was agreed that we should. BTW, I did not add the name. It was first added on 3 or 4 June and I did not edit the article on those days. I merely edited the article later to reflect the consensus. There is no WP:BLPCRIME violation. The individual has been named by German police using his first name and last initial and that has been reported in many WP:RS, so there is no BLP problem in including it. Other sources have given his full name, so again I see no BLP problem. We and the RS are not saying he is guilty of involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, merely that he is a person of interest. Therefore there is no issue with including that in the article. Should we remove the name of everyone who has been a person of interest from the article? Lard Almighty (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The BBC has decided to go along with the Christian B recommended by German law.[15] The Guardian has gone for Christian Brückner.[16] Personally I don't see a problem with the full name as it is easily available in the public domain by now and the most important thing is to make clear that he is a suspect. He has not been charged, let alone tried or convicted. The German prosecutors have hyped this up somewhat, because when you look at the overall evidence it is nowhere near enough to secure a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Portuguese police have said that they knew about Brückner a long time ago and consider the case against him to be weak. Most of the hype on this is coming from the German prosecutors, not the Portuguese police.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've linked to the discussion in my previous response, you don't need to summarise it in your own words for me. A discussion was made, the editor who started it didn't agree with the idea, stating We should presumably likewise avoid mentioning his name, for now?, and you were practically the only other participant in the discussion. But again, this is irrelevant, as talk page discussions don't override the BLP policy, and I see no reference to the BLP policy to show that editors even considered it.

Believe me, I don't want helping a sex offender to be the hill I die on, but every living person is afforded to equal protections under our BLP policy, regardless of whether I find the person contemptible. Sex offences are particularly awful, reputation-wise, and allowing this to stay sets awful precedent in the future to convicted criminals later accused of unrelated crimes. Discussions in the BLP archives have always found, across 8 years, editors in favour of retaining a conservative view on WP:BLPCRIME, even and especially when reliable sources widely report and name the individual, unless the person meets WP:WELLKNOWN (which this person doesn't).

BLPCRIME covers your rebuttal. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction and editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured (to be clear: "must seriously consider" has been interpreted as "do not include" across archives).

And yes, if the article names any other persons of interest (who were hence found to not be involved), they should absolutely be removed and are a perfect example of why we don't name suspects. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

In light of ianmacm's comment, I agree that the lede could have been written better. I have changed "In June 2020, the police in the German city Braunschweig announced that they suspect a convicted sexual predator, Christian Brückner, is responsible for McCann's disappearance." to "In June 2020, the police in the German city Braunschweig stated that a convicted sexual predator, Christian Brückner, is a suspect McCann's disappearance." to emphasise that he is only a person of interest. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, this doesn't really change the issue. Per BLPCRIME, we do not name suspects, people under investigation or people charged. Clarifying that he's only a suspect doesn't relieve the BLPCRIME issues here, in fact, it only makes it worse because we're effectively suggesting he did the crime when he hasn't even been charged, much less convicted. (also, ping Levivich for thoughts, since you enlightened me to the BLPCRIME archives, am I being too enlightened in this case?) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia. We need provide as complete as possible a summary of events. That includes stating that people have been declared persons of interest. As long as we don't state that anyone who hasn't been convicted is actually guilty of a crime there is no BLP violation. Not including something that is in the public domain in RS does our readers no service. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The comments on this are entirely my own. Unless the German prosecutors have some revolutionary new evidence that they are not telling us about, there is nothing much new to say about Christian Brückner, because apart from being a known sex offender, there is no knockout evidence linking him to the crime. The Portuguese police have already said this. I believe strongly in WP:BLPCRIME but there isn't much point in hiding things that are in the sources anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Ianmacm, indeed; it's a crime over a decade old and so, as expected, the evidence is circumstantial at best. The police could be right, they could be wrong, but we don't include for the very reason that they can be wrong. but there isn't much point in hiding things that are in the sources anyway I'd have agreed a few days ago, but we collate information that persists over time better than external sources, especially after recentism dies out. BLPCRIME exists precisely because RS might name people and we need an overriding policy to prevent inclusion, and discussions in archives have disallowed naming per BLPCRIME even when widely reported by RS. Naming suspects falls horribly foul on our policy, and the spirit and reasoning behind the policy, and I fear sets dangerous precedent for future issues of this nature where our naming could cause serious issues to a living person. I feel serious problems will arise in the future if we fail to enforce BLPCRIME for all individuals, regardless of how badly we detest them.

The Portuguese police knew about Christian Brückner in 2013 and they cannot understand why the German prosecutors are hyping him up so much in 2020 unless they have major new evidence. The fact that Brückner has not been arrested is interesting, because it shows that the evidence is circumstantial at best. I am still worried about hiding things that are in the sources, but it doesn't add much context to know his name.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Are we sure Brückner qualifies as a low-profile individual? Recenticism and all that, but there's still been a lot of coverage and suspects can become public figures if their name and face are splashed on the front page enough times. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

RaiderAspect, he does, per WP:WELLKNOWN and its supplement WP:LOWPROFILE. I'll save a paragraph since those pages write better than I can, but the whole point of WP:BLPCRIME is that RS' will publish names, and that may give rise to 'fame', but we shouldn't. Wikipedia's definition of "well known" isn't the same as notoriety. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME is also particularly relevant here, I think. It states that for individuals that are not public figures and have little to no notability outside the context of the article subject, to consider: whether any substance critical to the subject of the article would be lost by not including their name; and, that a useful test for whether the name should be included is whether the name can be found in secondary sources such as academic journals, etc, other than news articles. If the name can only be found in news media articles, it probably should not be included. Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

However unpleasant/evil or infamous the person is, they are still just a suspect in relation to this major crime, Wikipedia is not a repository of what is in the news WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. We wait until is a matter of history that they are convicted. WP:BLPCRIME should be respected and enforced. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not about the individual. It is about what is and is not appropriate to include. This very article shows that there are exceptions to WP:BLPCRIME. Both the McCanns and Robert Murat are named as having been suspects in the case. They have not actually been exonerated; their arguido status was lifted when the Portuguese police ended their investigation. It is impossible to accurately convey the events without mentioning these facts. Likewise, it is impossible not to mention a major development in the case. We cannot do so without linking to sources that name the individual involved. And as has been pointed out, allowing people to discover the name by clicking on a link in a Wikipedia article is no different to having the name in the article itself. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This argument has been made countless times since 2012. It's slightly disrespectful that you refuse to read the WT:BLP and BLP/N archives, so that you can understand the arguments made against what you are saying. You don't have to agree with them, but at least don't rehash exhausted points. The whole point of BLPCRIME is to not name suspects. The fact that people were previously named as suspects and are no longer is the exact reason why we don't include names, and labelling them as 'suspect' rather than 'convicted', as you believe is a solution, isn't. This discussion refers to the purpose of BLPCRIME to avoid media sensationalism damaging BLPs, This failed 2017 discussion, and this 2019 discussion reiterates how BLPCRIME should still be interpreted conservatively. There are dozens more across archives. I'd say the spirit of BLP applies, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment., but after 8 years of continued acceptance of the conservative approach I think it's beyond spirit and it's now well-established consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It is slightly disrespectful that you assume I have not read it. Notwithstanding previous discussions, Wikipedia policies allow for exceptions and as I say this article is a case in point. You are failing to understand that we do mention at least three people as suspects in this article even though nothing has been proven against them and they are almost certainly innocent. That's how the Portuguese legal system works. Imagine stripping all mentions of Kate and Gerry McCann and Robert Murat as suspects and all sources that mention them as suspects. The article would become meaningless. Likewise, in this case, if we wanted to remove any possibility that Wikipedia identified the suspect, we would have to remove all sources that named him as well as his name from the article. That would mean we couldn't mention a significant development in the case as all the sources I have seen either give his full name or first name and initial. Clearly not mentioning this development would be detrimental as it would not give readers the full picture.

That said, if you can find sufficient RS that fully cover this development in the case and that don't mention the suspect's name, then I would be happy for it to be omitted. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't have to stop using the same RS currently used. You can cite the same sources already cited, we just simply can't name the people. Yes, people could follow the link and see the names, but that's (mostly) outside the scope of BLPCRIME. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

So what's the point of not including the name in the article if we are linking to it anyway. One way or another, people are getting the information from Wikipedia. It just seems a technicality, especially as we do name other suspects in the article. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not really a technicality because most readers don't follow through every source and read it. Information exists outside of Wikipedia, it may even be easy to find, but our articles persist for longer, after the sensationalism and recentism dies out. No context is lost on the reader by not naming the person. Nobody knew who he is anyway, he was just another non-notable guy in prison outside of this. Naming him doesn't add any valuable information for the reader, and nothing of value is lost by replacing of his name with "an individual", "a previously convicted sex offender", or some variant thereof. (for recent discussion on using refs that mention name, see this ANI discussion) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do think it's a technicality. The point is whether or not Wikipedia should enable people to find a certain piece of information. Wikipedia enables people to find information in two ways: by including the information in articles and by linking to sources. Either way, the information is found via Wikipedia and if it is something that the community has determined should not be found via Wikipedia, I believe that it should not be found in either way. That's partly why we have policies like WP:DAILYMAIL, to ensure that we don't state something in an article that isn't reliably sourced but also to ensure that people are not directed to unreliable sources through Wikipedia, and indeed why we remove non-RS in general. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The BLP policy exists because WP is one of the most popular websites on the internet, and that amount of visibility means we should be very cautious with what we put in our articles. Putting something in the article text as opposed to leaving it in the sources gives it a lot more visibility. BLPCRIME says we should not give that extra visibility to low-profile crime suspects, and rightly so. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. Simply hovering over the ref reveals the name of the suspect. There is also a huge difference between an individual with an otherwise unblemished reputation being mentioned and one whose reputation isn't. That is why exceptions are allowed under WP:BLPCRIME after careful consideration. This was considered on the article's TP. Believe me, this is one of the most-watched articles for WP:BLP violations. I can think of half a dozen editors at least who regularly weigh in on BLP issues. If they had any concerns, we would have heard them during the discussion. And I repeat - this article is a case in point for WP:BLPCRIME exceptions. Robert Murat had no profile when he was first named as a suspect, but has been listed as such in the article since June 2007. He remains a low-profile individual, and therefore shouldn't be given extra prominence using this logic. But again, careful consideration has been given to this over the years and it has been determined that his name should remain in the article (even though his character was previously unblemished). I think this case is substantially the same, but the argument for inclusion here is even greater since he is a convicted criminal and therefore reputational damage by being listed as suspect in this case is minimal - certainly less than for Robert Murat. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Lard Almighty, you say that a careful consideration was made before including the name of the suspect - that is, the positives were weighed against the negatives and it was decided that the positives outweighed the negatives in this case.

This seems very doubtful to me, because I cannot think of any positives, let alone such strong positives that they would outweigh the negatives. What, exactly, does having the name of the suspect in there add to the article? Can you show us the benefits of including this information? Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion on the TP was brief but no objections were raised. But the addition was not made without thought. The benefits are that we give the fullest possible information. As long as the name is reported in multiple WP:RS, and we do not in any way suggest that he is guilty of these crimes, I see no problem with being as complete as possible - as I see no problem with naming Murat in the article. Exactly the same sitiation. Why would we name one and not the other? Lard Almighty (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

As I've pointed out to you, and as you already know because it's in the talk discussion you keep referring to, you're the only editor in there who clearly supported addition of this content. The first comment starting the section starts with We should presumably likewise avoid mentioning his name, for now? Ghmyrtle only pointed out the inconsistency. You were the only editor in that discussion clearly supporting inclusion. There is no evidence of "serious consideration" to BLPCRIME anyway, and talk page consensus never overrides the BLP policy. I AGF but since I've pointed this out 2-3 times already, I question if you're trying to be honest here. Second, "careful consideration" means almost never, in this context, if you refer to the archives I've mentioned to you several times. Finally, there is a reputation to destroy here. There's a massive difference both in public perception and notoriety between the crime he was convicted of, and the crime he is suspected of (but not yet even charged for). And as mentioned already, other suspects (I presume Murat is one) shouldn't've been mentioned either, but they can't be removed because you edit war over removals, hence why we're at this board. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm really struggling to AGF here, and I am also starting to question your honesty. You have made several false statements in this discussion which you have not corrected. You said I originally added the German suspect's name; I didn't. You now say I "edit war over removals". Show me the diffs where I edit war. Show me the warnings for edit warring on this article. As I said, Murat's name was added in June 2007, a month after the events and there has never been a serious suggestion that it should be removed. If I "edit war", it is precisely to prevent BLP violations on this article (which isn't edit warring). I (and about half a dozen editors) have been closely watching this article for years, and keeping it free of BLP violations. That is why I say that the discussion on the TP was sufficient, because if any of those editors had concerns they would have brought them up. And it was about whether to include the name or not. Surely if Ghmyrtle had any objections to including the name, he would not have pointed out an inconsistency but actually said "I don't think we should be including the name". That is precisely my point. This article is on the watchlists of several editors who watch articles for BLP violations, and they have never hesitated to weigh in with concerns. And indeed, there is a further discussion about whether this suspect merits his own section or even a separate article which three further editors contributed to with no suggestion that we shouldn't name him. It was clearly accepted on the TP that he should be named. As for other discussions, I have been editing here (including combating vandalism on BLPs) a heck of a lot longer than you (assuming that this is your first and only account) and have read and participated in many, many discussions over the years. You talk about "overriding" policy, but these policies are open to exceptions. It's that very fact that allows Murat to be named for example. You are consistently refusing to accept that. And as for damaging reputation, there is a huge difference between stating (in non-wiki voice) that as reported in multiple RS someone has been declared a person of interest by the police and saying that in wiki voice as if they were guilty of the crime. I would certainly argue against inclusion if it was a non-notable person or even a notable person with no previous allegations of this type against them. Indeed I have on this very article. (An example is where we refer to a 30-year-old former Ocean Club bus driver and his 24-year-old and 53-year-old associates without naming them, even though they admitted breaking in to apartments in the complex.) But in this case, I can't really see that saying in non-wiki voice that a convicted kidnapper and sex offender is a person of interest in another disappearance is going to cause any reputational damage. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

As long as the name is reported in multiple WP:RS, and we do not in any way suggest that he is guilty of these crimes, I see no problem with being as complete as possible Lard Almighty, that may be your view, but I think it is clear by now that consensus is against you on this. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 00:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

See my response to ProcrastinatingReader above. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Lard Almighty and ProcrastinatingReader, the conversation between you two appears to be completely derailing, so I'm going to put your arguments into a table and I'm going to suggest that you both shut up unless you have better arguments yet to bring. Obviously I'm biased; please tell me if I've misrepresented your arguments or missed anything important.

Lard Almighty	ProcrastinatingReader
There are plenty of BLP-sensitive people watching this page, and they haven't objected; in fact, there is consensus for inclusion at the talk page.	The consensus for BLPCRIME and its strict interpretation is broader and trumps any local consensus. Also, I don't agree that the consensus is there.
He's already a convicted sex offender, so no reputational damage.	What he's accused of here is seen as more terrible than what he's convicted of, so yes reputational damage.
We're not saying that he's actually done it, just that he's a suspect.	We should not name him at all.
Another person was also included when he was just a suspect, and he was not a convicted sex offender.	Then that was a mistake.

Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 16:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess the word "derailing" merits some explanation: you're both making long comments with nothing new in them (certainly these last two). At that point, it's better to stop. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 19:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

PJvanMill yeah, I think we have both said our pieces. I would have hoped that a few more people would have participated (on either side) to get a clearer consensus, but I think we can close this for now and agree to leave the name out for the moment and see how things transpire with any further developments in the case. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Lard Almighty edited my table, which probably indicates they're not quite happy with my summary of their arguments. Their additional clarification is preserved below.::# In the same way there is consensus for mentioning Murat. There has been no acknowledgement that the policy is open to exceptions, even though there is a clear exception made in the very article. We should consider whether tis is another such exception.

1. To suffer reputational damage you have to have a reputation to lose. Someone who is a convicted sex offender and kidnapper would have a difficult time claiming his reputation has been damaged simply by being declared a person of interest in a similar case - which is all we're saying he is.
2. He has been declared a person of interest in the case by the German authorities, as reported in multiple WP:RS.
3. This inclusion is longstanding and has remained because there is consensus for it to remain, again showing that there can be exceptions. If it was a mistake, why hasn't it been removed?

I've taken these out of my table; per WP:TPO, please do not edit others' comments. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 19:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, this isn't a TP, it's a project page, and I thought it would be clearer in one place. Anyway it's kind of moot now! Lard Almighty (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Lard Almighty, just so you know: the talk page guidelines also apply to noticeboards. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 12:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Outside interloper: Sorry, I did just want to clarify that the statement "but there isn't much point in hiding things that are in the sources anyway." is an appalling misreading of BLP and BLPCRIME policy - other than that, I don't know enough about McCann or that which you're all discussing...just wanted to interject to say "Whoa, back up - that's wrong" to that one sentence fragment :) Mostcommonphraseongoogle (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the point he was making is that a policy that says we can't have something in the body of an article, and yet we can link to something off-wiki that mentions what we aren't mentioning kind of defeats the purpose. Yes the policy allows it, but if the point of WP:BLP is so that Wikipedia is not enabling people to find certain information in the body of an article and yet facilitating people to find it through something linked here, that rather defeats the purpose! Wikipedia is still how they found it. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't receive the July 3 ping for whatever reason; just noticing this thread now. I agree the name of the suspect should be excluded per a straightforward application of WP:BLPCRIME. We don't name low-profile suspects. Whether or not the suspect has been previously convicted of another crime is irrelevant to the analysis. That RSes name the suspect is also besides the point. Or, rather, it is the point. If RSes didn't name the suspect we wouldn't even be having the discussion, it wouldn't pass WP:V. But the point of WP:BLPCRIME is that it's a special rule to exclude suspect's names even when it's sourced (even when it passes WP:V). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Caren Turner

Caren Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Talk:Caren_Turner#WP:UNDUE

I think there's a very strong claim that this is a textbook instance of WP:UNDUE weight being attached to her tertiary involvement in a traffic stop wherein her daughter had an out-of-state registration and it takes up more than half the article. I'll suggest to shorten the section to some variation of "In 2018 New Jersey police released the footage of an incident wherein Turner confronted police who had impounded a relative's vehicle for lack of insurance and current registration tags. Turner had told the officers she was "a friend of the mayor" and insisted on being referenced as "Commissioner" by the officers, while asking the officers to explain their decision. Turner later apologised for her behavior and resigned from the Port Authority board, after facing fierce criticism for her intervention.".

Terms like "with the New Jersey Star Ledger writing that she was "unencumbered by clue" while a commentator for the Today Show described her as having "all the tact and manners of a zoo animal at feeding time.", have no place in the article and certainly do not help "communicate the complexity and nuance of the situation"...not that there is any complexity or nuance to the situation, which is exactly my point. The news rated the VIRAL VIDEO one of the biggest moments in NJ, not the fact somebody had license plate tags out of date or that their mother tried to intervene. This is a BLP, not an article about a viral video

I have zero connection to Turner, or New York/Jersey, I am not even from the United States - this is just a case of Wikipedia unfortunately contributing to the pillorying of a BLP over a minor incident that, had it not been for Youtube, would not have registered even a sentence in any newspaper. Mostcommonphraseongoogle (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

She was removed from her job, an (unpaid?) position of authority. We also claim the incident led to introduction of legislation, which passed the New Jersey Senate. I think that makes the incident something beyond just entertainment or just minor. If YouTube and viral videos lead to laws, we cover that. Perhaps similar abuse in the past would have "not registered even a sentence in any newspaper". That's an interesting and important difference between now and then. I support making some sense of this subject's career, and covering their other noteworthy deeds. I think this subject could be noteworthy for a single incident, which would mean they don't merit a page about themselves. However, before this incident, we considered her generally noteworthy, apparently for being a commissioner. Now she's also noted for how she lost that job. Mcfnord (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

BLPCAT and conviction categories for people exonerated

I noticed someone on a category for people convicted of murder in NZ who I knew had been exonerated and removed them. After looking more carefully and noticing at least one more I decided to have a look at the wider cats and was concerned to find Category talk:People convicted of murder#RfC. Am I the only to be concerned that the outcome of that 2015 RfC is in conflict with WP:BLPCAT at least when it comes to people who are still alive?

Unless someone checks out the article, it's not at all obvious that someone in those cats were exonerated. It seems weird to me to be so concerned about putting a person in in a catholics cat when the article says they were raised and confirmed Catholic and still sometimes go to church but consider themselves lapsed or non believing, to make up a random example. But we don't worry about putting someone in the convicted of murder category when the conviction while factual was overturned and the person is well accepted as innocent.

Further as someone noted in that discussion, those cats are even effectively subcats of the murderers category, yet someone exonerated is obviously not a murderer (unless of some other murder). At the very least, shouldn't we add text in the cats noting it includes people who were exonerated?

Nil Einne (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems like that's not exactly what that RfC determined. The RfC was in relation to Category:People convicted of murder and Category:People wrongfully convicted of murder. There was no consensus to change the then-current way of doing things, which is include them in both lists, and the latter list is a subcategory of the first. BLPCAT still states that the category is relevant when it relates to the person's notability. I'd imagine that typically a person who was both legally convicted, and later that conviction was overturned, has a substantial part of their notability due to said criminal status. But I don't think it's such a black-and-white issue, and it does deserve comment from other editors. On a tangential note, I think you're referring to Teina Pora in this, the categories on that page are a bit of a mess. I question the need for both Category:People convicted of murder by New Zealand and Category:New Zealand people convicted of murder, and it's certainly inconsistent with other countries' categories. Whatever the resolution of this issue, I suspect quite a few categories need cleaning up. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The religion thing I get. I was raised a Presbyterian, but if you were to categorize me as such, I would have to object. I still hold some of those Christian beliefs embedded in my upbringing, which came fully intertwined with and colored by the pagan beliefs of my ancestors. I celebrate Christmas, even though the British/American version is totally a Viking holiday filled with Viking traditions, and Halloween, a totally Celtic holiday. But if you asked me my religion, I would say I'm predominantly Christian, yet I'm totally Taoist. I'm more than a little Buddist, with a good heap of Celtic, a wee bit of Greek, and a hell of a lot of Viking. I mostly believe in science, and that science is constantly changing. So just categorize me as a Jedi, of the Raven Clan of the Eskimos.

The problem I have with categories in general is that they are too stereotypical. When you put someone into a category, you're basically defining that person solely by the title of that category, and the world is rarely that black and white. Categorization is necessary for memory and comprehension, and is hard-wired into the brains of any animal with an amygdala; eg: everything we see we automatically categorize before storing it in the hippocampus. The problem is that this is also the source of stereotyping and the psychological roots of prejudice --and there are plenty of reliable sources I can cite for that-- so we have to be extremely careful about categorizing things. Since the dawn of time categorization and stereotyping has been used for very nefarious and even horrific purposes. Some categories are very useful, but some can be very misleading and totally one-sided, providing no balance, and I think a category of convicted felons is a good example of a bad category. Zaereth (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

And of course, you can't source categories. So for categories that are based on some subjective aspect, now you create severe problems, particularly if you have BLP in the category. At least with a list, you can source each item on the list. --Masem (t) 05:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't deny that religion is a sensitive thing and complicated. The thing is though, from my PoV as someone who is best described as agnostic or atheist but who was raised catholic and was confirmed just before adulthood but never go to church any more, I would be mildly annoyed if an article on me categorises me as catholic. I'd be pissed off if an article still categorises me as 'convicted of murder' when I was exonerated and widely accepted as innocent. I doubt I'm the only one. I recognise that technically the catholic cat is not correct under most definitions, but the 'convicted of' would often be argued as technically correct, but IMO there are still reasons why the latter is far more of a problem. I'm assuming the article adequately conveys both my religious views and my conviction status, so IMO the big issue is someone that people will see the cat without properly reading the article, or more likely without reading it at all. I'm not saying we should ignore problems with religious cats, but rather I just find it weird we're so sensitive to problems with them, but at least in that 2015 discussion didn't seem to be that worried about the ramifications of putting someone in a 'convicted of' cat when the conviction has been overturned and is well accepted as wrongful. (That said, I'm fairly sure trying to re-add [17] George Pell to Category:Australian people convicted of child sexual abuse or Category:Australian people convicted of indecent assault wouldn't go down well.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I fixed your comment as you forgot a : for the NZ cats so were categorising this page in them rather than linking to them. That isn't the only article, as Arthur Allan Thomas has the same problem. I feared there may be more, but actually there doesn't seem to be. I suspect you're right though and other articles with other country subcats and maybe even those in the general cat have the same problem one of the reasons I started this discussion. The problem is the RfC didn't seem to consider the BLP implications at all. Yet given the outcome, from my POV I would be in violation of it if I were to remove those 2 articles from the convicted cats. Yes technically it didn't address the issue of country subcats, but to argue it doesn't apply to them seems wikilawyering to me, the RfC clearly established that people should be listed in both a 'convicted of' cat and a 'wrongfully convicted of' cat. I imagine one of the concerns is 'wrongfully convicted' is likely to be far smaller, therefore it may not make sense to make subcats per country making it difficult to find cases per country but IMO this isn't good enough. I guess the other consideration is if you remember someone who was convicted of murder and with only a vague memory of their name and don't know they were exonerated, you may be confused by being unable to find them. But again, IMO this also isn't a good enough reason. Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

If an unsourced category claims someone was convicted of murder even after they were un-convicted, I would have a serious problem with that claim. Saying via the category quibbles that some were exonerated while still calling them a murderer is not an acceptable compromise. Pretend the category is "People NOW convicted of murder". That is, today, right now, are they murder convicts? It seems simply unacceptable that I might be convicted in the past, but not today, and yet I'm on some list on Wikipedia due to... accuracy? The most serious charge deserves the most serious evidence, and here we don't even offer evidence, just quibbling about some kind of category nerd compromise? How about: No way. It is not unreasonable to think about the subject of the BLP and ask what they or their kids would think of a claim we all kinda know is MISleading. Of course the article itself would cover what happened (with prominence on the legal outcome). Mcfnord (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert Brustein

Sort of a strange question that I am not sure where exactly would be the most appropriate place to post, so apologies if this should be elsewhere. An editor claiming to be a son of Robert Brustein has been adding non-notable family members to the page without proper references. When I contacted the editor per WP:BLPNAME, he claimed that the subject of the article requested that the family members be part of his article. Now I know that we do not follow whatever the subject tells us to do, but the main justification for BLPNAME is respecting the privacy of the individuals, which does not seem to be an issue here. I have not yet contacted the subject to verify his desire to have the family included, but I am wondering if, hypothetically, the subject did express this desire (and verifiability was met through an OTRS ticket), would the information be permissible in the article or no? Canadian Paul 03:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The first question I would ask myself is, does having the names provide any benefit for the reader in understanding the subject? If the family members are not notable enough to have their own articles, then I would leave them out, otherwise they're just meaningless names to the reader and trivial info. For the reader, 99% of the time simple generic descriptors can work just as effectively (ie: so-and-so is married and had x number of children).

Second, I don't know if it's up to the subject to relinquish the rights of privacy for his family members, even his children, or rather, especially his children, who may not yet be old enough to give their own informed consent. The subject may not even have considered the potential problems that could arise from naming them, both in the present and the distant future. I would say err on the side of caution and leave them out unless there is some compelling reason to show that it's absolutely necessary for the reader's understanding of the subject. If none exist, then we shouldn't add them for the mere sake of vanity. Zaereth (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it true that the standard for including living family member's names, in a biographical article about a notable living subject, is their own notability? If so, there are a lot of articles and info boxes that run afoul of this, especially when it comes to spouses. Ditch ∝ 04:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME doesn't say not to include but we always should apply caution and defer not to include if the names haven't been readily discussed in connection to the BLP/BIO page. That, to me, means you should be easily able to verify the name and the relationship via a simple news search (assuming its a recent person), and not have to dig into tabloids, or things like obits, marriage announcements, social media posts, etc. --Masem (t) 05:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

And yes, referencing on these names is absolutely required. --Masem (t) 05:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I actually think the second point is key here. I've always interpreted BLPNAME to be worried about the BLP implications for the named parties. I don't think the subject's concerns are themselves that big a deal so their views have little sway for me. This is perhaps one issue editors including me can fail on, forgetting the implications on other living people especially when the subject of an article is themselves a living person. By that I don't mean indirect effects, I can understand why reading that person A was a rapist may be distressing for family and friends but other than to the limited extent of BDP, I don't think their concerns arise to BLP. However if an article says that during their first marriage person A suffered spousal abuse even if person A is the subject of the article and the spouse is unnamed, we do need to consider BLP when dealing with such claims. Likewise if person A was recalled as an ambassador because of some allegations about their spouse's activities. Or if one of person A's defences against a murder conviction is that the boyfriend did it. (The latter two are are real examples BTW.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The main thing I tend to look for is whether of not it adds some value to the article. If nobody has ever heard of these people, then what is the point in naming them? What value does it add? To the average reader, it's just a word without any meaning; a name with no "face". Does it really matter if he has, say ... a son named Mark? Would it make the slightest difference if the name was Kevin? Or Bob? Would the meaning stay the same if we just said "son".

It's a different matter if the person has a Wikipedia article we can link to. Then you have a "face" with that name. It also automatically demonstrates that naming the person will not be an invasion of their privacy. The same could be said in certain circumstances where the subject is very well-known, such as a celebrity or politician. Their family members may not be notable enough to have their own article, but if the names have been very widely published then they should probably be included, but in most of these cases I'd say immediate family only.

However, if the family member is unknown and the subject is not a public figure, then what good do the names do for the average reader? The only people who would give a damn are the friends and family, hackers, identity thieves, child molesters, stalkers, etc., etc. In my opinion, it's best to err on the side of caution and leave them out unless there is some reason the names are necessary for understanding the subject. If you can cut the names without changing the meaning, then there is no point in having them. Zaereth (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for commenting with such detail and thoughtfulness. These are all pretty much the responses that I expected, but I appreciate having a broader discussion to be able to point to should the issue rise again. Thanks again. Canadian Paul 02:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Laura Whitehorn

The description 'domestic terrorist' has been added to the first sentence several times recently. If there's a consensus that it's appropriate, fine. If it's not, then all instances merit rev/deletion as defamatory. 2601:188:180:B8E0:5B0:DC19:883:CA94 (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

At first I agreed, but now I don't know! The subject pleaded guilty to "conspiracy and destruction of Government property". In 1990, is this what we called terrorism? I have doubts. We can Only infer the lede from the charge that stuck, which is conspiracy and destruction of Government property. I suspect she has not been convicted of being a domestic terrorist. She's a convicted felon, so I've dialed the claim back to that as we discuss. Mcfnord (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a popular misconception that the first sentence of the lead has to summarise the rest of the lead. Since her convictions are detailed later in the lead, I think we can do away with "domestic terrorist" and/or "convicted felon" from the first sentence. FDW777 (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It's misleading, or somehow incomplete, to omit her felon status. She was not convicted of minor offenses. Perhaps she's a perfectly delightful revolutionary from back in the day, but she made bombs. They robbed banks. She did 14 years. I don't think she was a political prisoner during that period. Her activism led to reckless, dangerous behavior that we consciously do place outside the realm of mere activism. She is, for whatever motivations, noble or not, a felon who destroyed government property. Activists definitely do need to understand this particular actvist's consequences. We shouldn't bury the lede. Mcfnord (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not omitted! The lead ends with She participated in the 1983 United States Senate bombing and served 14 years in federal prison for her crimes. As previously stated, the lead summarises the article. There's no requirement in WP:LEAD for the first sentence to summarise the rest of the lead. FDW777 (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Samuthirakani

He acted in a Indian crime movie named Walter and a movie in Tamil named Vattam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.54.183 (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Mercola

Joseph Mercola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) added as courtesy Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

In the description of Dr. Mercola, I would like to see the word "charlatan" replaced with controversial. I am not associated with Dr. Mercola and I don't buy his products but to label him a charlatan because he has a dissenting voice is not the American way. Some of his ideas on Covid-19 have appeared radical but then I've noticed that a few weeks later, some of them appear as mainstream treatment. Some of his ideas strike me as crazy. In American we value many voices to reach the truth. And sometimes even in conventional medicine, what was truth becomes false as more information becomes available. The fulcrum always swings right and left before we reach the center. That doesn't make the right or left charlatans. It makes them controversial. Please consider using a different word to describe Dr. Mercola. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianelmann (talk • contribs) 05:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

"Charlatan" is sourced. We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia or to outright falsehoods.

He is not called such because of politics but because medicine is a science... A science he regularly demonstrates downright incorrect knowledge of (instead of merely a lack of knowledge). Ian.thomson (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not immediately clear to me that the precise word "charlatan" is directly sourced. What are you thinking of? The Chicago Magazine reference uses the word but not as a direct description of him. I'm not questioning any of the rest of the lead, and certainly not accepting Dianelmann's suggestion, but we need to be careful with BLPs. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This was just discussed a few days ago at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Dr._Joseph_Mercola. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, very helpful. I see my concerns are similar to those raised there, and that the issue wasn't clearly resolved. It would be nice to have a clear unambiguous reference for "charlatan" or "quack" if we are going to use that as the principal description in the opening sentence of the lead. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19 & BLPs

Various celebrities have contracted Covid-19, some have self-identified as doing so. But is it usually worth mentioning in their bios? Millions of people have contracted the thing and it usually emerges as fancruft/wailing/gossip in the case of celebrities. We're not a news website, so is it really worth recording unless they have some prolonged episode/outcome? I am just concerned it becomes a bit like saying "they had measles". - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

My gut wants to agree with you. Mcfnord (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that unless significant media attention was given to it (ala Tom Hanks as a prime example), I would agree that simply having them and recovering with no serious issues is trivial information. --Masem (t) 16:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed - do not include unless that individual specially was notable for having it like Tom Hanks noted above. Meatsgains^(talk) 16:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

How would we determine that the person is "specially notable" for having it? By definition of being a celebrity, the news gets plastered everywhere. I'm sure there are exceptional cases but can we come up with some rough-ish guideline to work with? - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

A very rough guide would be whether or not reliable, independent sources have covered it - so not their own Instagram account, and not tabloids etc. GiantSnowman 17:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Another consideration might be whether it had a considerable impact on them. If someone had mild symptoms and shrugged it off, it hardly seems worth mentioning; it damn near killed Michael Rosen however, and it seems unlikely that he will fully recover - leaving it out would seem ridiculous. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's my unless they have some prolonged episode/outcome exception. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Sitush, yes, sorry I should have said that I agree with you on that. As with anything else, if it's an important event in their life, we should mention it, but if it's just something that's in the news because special correspondent Mr Phil Space (or Ms Phillipa Page) has been commissioned to write a celeb covid piece, we should probably pass over it. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Phil Space? You've been reading Private Eye. I'm still trying to find somewhere to cite page 94. - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thinking about this more, the way I would treat it is almost (and this is not meant to insult people that get it) as a sexual misconduct accusation - we shouldn't include it until is known that it has some major impact on their life. Tom Hanks - he was forced to stop shooting a film and go into quarantine and was one of the first big celebs to get it so clearly that was a career impact we should include. Or as another example, Damian Kulash's sister got COVID (she came out ok) which led to him to write a song & video for OK Go to praise first responders that got coverage - that's a career impact that should be covered. But a random celeb already in lockdown saying in their social media "Oh, I got COVID symptoms but doctors told me to quarantine for a few weeks" and they come out fine at the end with no career changes, that just should passed over, just as if they got the common cold and were out of commission for a few weeks. --Masem (t) 03:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

^ This ^ is my concern. But based on prompting at the article talk page, which itself was based on the outcome of this thread, I've just made this edit. Can't say I'm terribly happy about it but I do appreciate the irony of someone who apparently was helping government get its message across then fall foul of the disease. "Mild symptoms" wouldn't usually get someone hospitalised but of course he is privileged. It should be noted that this particular article gets a lot of fancruft. - Sitush (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steven Pinker

Newish editors are, I think, using the article Steven Pinker to Right Great Wrongs. But it's my bedtime. -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Or perhaps a Great Wrong (singular); I'm not sure. I'm impressed by the energy of the SPAs, but if they're breaking any rules then they aren't doing so very blatantly. -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

How many pictures of this person are a good number? One? Two? Oh five. Mcfnord (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The obvious place to ask this question is Talk:Steven Pinker. -- Hoary (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Adrian David Cheok

This article "smells" of an attempt to attack a living person Adrian David Cheok. Almost no words are written about the person's positive achievements which made him a figure of interest, and almost everything is focussed on negative and potentially libel matters. Either there should be a balanced perspective positive and negative in a fair way, or this article is a source of libel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.123.191.11 (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I am a journalist at a major newspaper in Malaysia. I do not know the subject Adrian David Cheok personally, but as a journalist I do know he is a very well known scientist with many achievements and accolades. If the original author's believe he should have a page in Wikipedia (and I am not saying he should have a page in Wikipedia), then they should show in a fair way the positive and negative facts. The way this article was first written shows to me, as a professional journalist, that they had malicious intent to slur his name and slur his reputation, which I think in many countries would be prosecuted as libel. In any case, either delete the page if the subject is not of interest to Wikipedia readers (his scientific work is rather in an area which is not readily known by the general public, it is not something like mathematics or physics), OR present it FAIRLY and in a unbiased way. I have added facts which I believe the original authors deliberately left out in order to paint a very negative picture of the subject, who is a living person and therefore we must follow Wikipedia rules and not write potential libel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewStraitsTimesJournalist (talk • contribs) 10:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Sexual Misconduct / Harassments is being implied in this article without evidence One of the edits described his remote kissing machine as a sexual device, when it has never been described as such in any reference or video I can see on "Kissenger" a remote kissing machine. In fact the inventors Cheok and Zhang constantly talk about remote family interaction (such as grandparent and grandchild).

The only work described in the sources that he used with his female student was the remote kissing gadget Kissenger. It has never been described by the inventors Cheok & Zhang as anything sexual, in fact on the video all the examples they give are family interactions (grandmother, grandchild etc.). The complaint is only about one female student which is the actual co-inventor Emma Yann Zhang who is Cheok's PhD student. We should not go into dangerous territory of potential libel of implying sexual misconduct or sexual harassments by a living person unless we have valid independent evidence, we should not be making the "judgement" on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve from NYU (talk • contribs) 06:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget to sign your edits on the talk page, guys, four tildes at the end of the last paragraph! Licks-rocks (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Epstein's "Black Book" & BLPs

Recently there has been many edits adding that the person is included in Epstein's "Black Book", however I cannot find any evidence that proves that this book actually belonged to Epstein, the only source provided is simply a scan of the book, unless any evidence can be provided I think this should be considered libelous. FozzieHey (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh heck yeah! Mcfnord (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The New Yorker has a long article on Epstein's "Black Book" and some of the names in it. The New Yorker is a reliable source for indicating that the book belonged to Epstein. However, I don't think the little factoid that an individual was in the book should be included in a biography article. It is undue weight to a minor fact. Mentioning it also creates the impression that the individual was associated with Epstein's sexual activities. The black book is merely his address book. It is not a little black book of his sex clients. -- Guest2625 (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The New Yorker article just seems to referrence Gawker publishing the book, which is not considered a reliable source under WP:RSP. FozzieHey (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Vanity Fair has a direct interview with the reporter Nick Bryant who obtained Epstein's black book. Vanity Fair is a reliable source. --Guest2625 (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's presume that the authenticity of the book is valid as well as the names documented by the New Yorker. This still feels like inappropriate information to add just because the name appeared in the book with no other connecting information. Being included in this book, which should be taken as just a contact book and thus not necessary good or bad, has clear implicit complications when it is being labelled as Epstein's "Black Book" which has negative connotations. Unless the person has been connected already to Epstein prior, we should not be including this on the respective BLP/BIO pages at all. --Masem (t) 17:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Francis Gurry

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

Could somebody have a look at this edit? I have removed similar material quite a few times [18][19][20][21][22] over an extended period but did not manage to convince Torm65 (talk · contribs) that better sources are needed for such controversial material. In particular, IMHO, this source is insufficient (as further explained here). Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Ghislaine Maxwell

The infobox says she is merely a "naturalized citizen" (because "that's what a source says"). This is not NPOV. Everybody else's citizenship is simply given as "United States" if at all (see for example Charlize Theron, Christian Bale, John Oliver...). I don't think we should be creating nativist ghettos for those half-Americans that don't really belong here and are 'not one of us'. 184.101.189.72 (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd help you jam US naturalized citizen into their infoboxes. Do you know of any other American designated in this way in an infobox? IMcfnord (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Janice Lourie

Janice Lourie is doubtless notable, an the Wikipedia article is presumably pretty accurate, but (as we've discovered through various discussions on Commons -- see especially User talk:Janvermont#proposal to authenticate Janice Lourie Wikipedia page, it was largely written by people close enough to the subject to have conflicts of interest. Ms. Lourie has an account here as User:Janvermont, and at this point (see prior link) she clearly understands the issue. I think everyone who has been involved with the Commons discussion, including Ms. Lourie, agrees at this point at least that someone unconnected should verify the references in the Wikipedia article and clean up any issues of tone that reflected the authors being too close to the subject. It might even be desirable to restart from scratch, but I think not: the basic facts seem right and her being the first person at IBM to get a software patent would merit an article even without her numerous other achievements.

For the record: I had no connection to Ms. Lourie prior to the recent exchanges on Commons, but I'm too engaged in other projects right now to take this on myself. - Jmabel | Talk 18:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I worked on the article long ago and I will take a look. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I am here to respond to queries and to accept sources, both old and new, relevant to the Wikipedia page.Janvermont (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Janvermont (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Adrian Zenz

• Adrian Zenz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Adrian Zenz is a German researcher who works on the Xinjiang re-education camps and his work in this area has been used by journalists and academics. However, he is a born again christian and co-authored the book "Worthy to Escape: Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation" in 2012, which has been claimed by pro-Chinese sources like CGTN (link), Global Times (link), and The Grayzone to say that the dominant world philosophy is the spirit of the antichrist, alongside homophobic and pro-corporal punishment sentiments. The obvious intent of these sources is to discredit him and his work on the Xinjiang re-education camps, but of course that doesn't mean that these claims about the arguments of the book are necessarily inaccurate. These claims have been added by IP and new users and there appears to be evidence of off-site canvassing by pro-China twitter accounts. There is an ongoing RfC on the talk page about whether these sources should be included and how much of the book should be mentioned or even if it should be mentioned at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Blippi

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

Consensus can change. According to the talk page discussion, the initial concern was that the video was not actually Blippi.[23] Since it turned out it was him,[24] it then became an UNDUE question. Two editors cannot establish perpetual consensus. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Tom Lackey

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

User:Msqared80 is repeatedly adding contentious material on this page supposedly based on court documents, contrary to WP:BLPPRIMARY (see [25] and [26]) apparently misunderstanding the role of primary and secondary sources on Wikipedia. Given the user's edit also on Steve Fox (politician) (see [27] and [28]), a repeated political opponent of Tom Lackey, it looks like an attempt to further some off-wiki dispute and may be indicative of a COI. I've pointed the user to WP:BLP and tried to address some of their valid concerns, when I've been able to find supporting secondary sources. An outside opinion might be useful, but the user has not changed behavior on other pages when reverted by multiple editors so I'm not sure of the proper path forward. Thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Given his other current contribution appears to be edit warring to removed the LDS from various Christian lists [29], [30], I suspect the way forward is some sort of block. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Aleen Nichol Johnson

I wasn't sure here, but the info box image looks rather inappropriate and also professional, so I was wondering if there maybe a copyright issue there or not. Govvy (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, according to the exif data at Commons, the copyright holder is @rawviszuals who is a professional photographer- and if you check their instagram, lo and behold there is the pic. An earlier pic has already been removed from the article as a copyright infringement [here]. Sourcing- New York Post and the Daily Star are tabloids and should not be used on a BLP. I'm not sure the subject is really notable. Perhaps try WP:COIN ? it smells a bit like UPE to me... Curdle (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Francisco J. Ricardo

Francisco J. Ricardo has seen a recent blow-up of edits to the article. I don't think it was ever a real quality article and just kind of always reeked of a vanity page, or something assembled by 'eager students' (is probably the nice way to put it), but the recent edits have really turned it into an advertisement. There are copious walls of—well, I don't know what the academic version of technobabble is, but there are walls of it:

"Ricardo's approach has been acknowledged as contrary in process to narrative methods used in conventional filmmaking, often driven by his perspective as a scholar. Of F for Franco, the phenomenological approach to generating James Franco's subjective experience is an explicitly visual part of the content, suggesting that experiences rather "facts" are being recounted."

Based on the structure of these walls, it looks like these could also be copyright violations, although a few copy/pasted Google searches didn't yield anything for me. Since I'm busy IRL as well as on-site, I'm afraid that this is going to quickly drop off my radar, so I thought I'd bring it here for wider attention. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this article is a perfect candidate for deletion. There are no independent, secondary sources except for the two film reviews, and those only mention his name in passing as the director and are used in the article only to say that so-and-so reviewed the film, a self-made documentary that hasn't really been shown anywhere. Everything else are sites that are selling his products, including many links to Amazon and Bloomsbury. A quick search of google turns up no reliable sources.

The article itself is mostly incoherent, as the sample above portrays. I haven't found any evidence of copyright per se, but all these quotes had to come from somewhere, and my guess would be from his classes. To understand what any of it is trying to say one would need a substantial amount of background info that is not provided, and without it reads like the ramblings of someone who is really stoned. None of this really tells us anything about the subject, but at best is an attempt to promote his works.

I would delete all of the unsourced material and unreadable sections, but that would leave us with, "...The film was reviewed by so-and-so and this other company" and that's it. I wholly recommend sending this to AFD for deletion, or perhaps an admin could come along and speedy it under any number of criteria, but I see nothing here or out there that confers any notability on this person. It looks like self-promotion. Zaereth (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Tarek Hussein

I've removed this section about serious allegations against the subject for now, as none of the three sources meet verifiability and reliable sources thresholds for WP:BLP as far as I can see (the first doesn't mention the subject by name, the other two result in 404s). Requesting more eyes on this, as there are several IPs and accounts squabbling over inclusion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk - BLP vio

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

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