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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure) Consensus for option A for question 1. ("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.") No consensus as to question 2. None of the alternate proposals gained consensus. - MrX 🖋 18:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

---

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)

(Sorry late with this reply). The trouble is that the are several alternative equally solid reliable sources that quote the relevant Rowling's sentence more accurately, that include a phrase from the middle of the relevant sentence that is absent from the Reuters version, that is directly relevant this RfC, that clearly reminds the reader along with any man who believes or feels he’s a woman that Rowling's essay is about trans people and not really about devious male invaders. The problem here is that even though Reuters is a top notch reliable source, it is not in this instance the best source for accurately covering this chosen passage from Rowling's essay.

"In referring 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."

Gender Recognition Certificates are not just handed out, you have be examined by psychiatrists and satisfy their test to be award with a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria (not straight forward) and live in role for a minimum of 6 months. In this passage, in line with the rest of her essay she is clearly and purposefully misgendering trans women as men, when she warns us of the danger of men with GRCs entering the wash-room, elsewhere she misgenders transmen. 23:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK

• 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)

(Bit late with this reply) I am sure that Rowling might be aware that to get a certificate you have to be diagnosed by a pair of psychologists with Gender Dysphoria and that it is not s simple process, you have to live in role a total of 6 months. Hardly much scope for dishonesty. The are far easier ways for a deviant male to invade a single gender place, just pretend to be a cleaner or attendant. She is calling them men, because she regards all trans women as men and all trans men as women, note she says its ok for trans men to enter women only spaces. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:29, 2 August 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)
• Obviously the material should be included, and either option is acceptable. I lean towards Option B since I still don't get how it is a misrepresentation. It's a fair summary of the quote concerning her allegations about the dangers of mixed bathrooms. Usually, Wikipedia favors prose to direct quotes per WP:QUOTEFARM. Still, Option A is half-decent and probably an acceptable alternative. As for question 2, yes.Funtoedit1212 (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• 1. Option A There was an incident, here in Canada, where an individual who identified as transgender, who had not undergone the surgery, and retained a penis, had been turned away when seeking bikini waxes of their genital area. The exclusively female workers at those businesses didn't feel safe giving bikini waxes to someone with a penis. The transgender individual sued the businesses, and the individual workers, for discrimination. Others may disagree, but it seems to me this incident is a specific instance of the kind of thing Rowling warned about, in general. Geo Swan (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: This is why we can't have nice things. By the time you make up your mind between 1a and 1b, it turns out there are 1c, 1d and 1e as well. We need a mechanism for closing complex RfCs without prejudice, so they can be rephrased and everyone can vote on all options in an orderly fashion. François Robere (talk) 15:36, 6 August 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)

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

Can alt-right / far-right figures be described as such?

This text[15] was removed on the Dave Rubin page, making it unclear why it was controversial for Rubin to host extremists such as Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux and Tommy Robinson. It was controversial because these figures are extremists of one kind or another (alt-right, far-right, white nationalist). By simply saying they are "controversial figures" but without specifying why, we are omitting relevant information for the readers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not a neutral description of the issue at hand. The issue here is that on the Rubin page several other BLP subjects are subject to contentious wp:LABELs in wiki voice. On the respective BLP articles there is a mix of attributed and wiki-voice use of the labels in question. An IP editor removed the labels. I think the IP editor was correct as they are very contentious labels and, in the Rubin article, they are made in wiki-voice with no supporting citations. I'm more than willing to agree that there are sources that use these labels to describe the various individuals. However, since all are BLP subjects, avoiding contentious voices in wiki-voice seems like the correct procedure in this case. Snoog failed to link the talk page discussion [[16]] where I've proposed a possible alternative text. "Rubin has had guests described as alt-right, far-right, nationalist and white supremacist. Controversial guests include [list of names]" The alternative text uses all the controversial labels and lists the names but doesn't directly connect any of them. In my view this avoids the BLP issues and respects wp:LABEL. Springee (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah a quick look over and I think Springee is right. It is listed in the subjects article if the reader is interested. For the main article controversial is fine otherwise it comes off as guilt by association. PackMecEng (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The way it was added put those labels to those people (not Rubin) in Wikivoice, when it needs to be out with attribution of some type as labels, making it a BLP violation for those four people. You could say, "Critics have accused Rubin of providing a prominent platform to the controversial speakers with alt-right, far-right, and nationalist viewpoints, including Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux, and Tommy Robinson." Now, that's a tiny bit vague of who's who but it takes the labels out of wikivoice and put on the general viewpoints of all the guests of Rubin, still identifies why that's controversial, and lets readers see who they are and follow links if they are not by name. --Masem (t) 17:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that is a good way to handle it. It's cleaner than what I had originally proposed and again avoids wiki-voice issues. Springee (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah certainly an improvement. Snooganssnoogans you good with that? PackMecEng (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't accept the premise, and have offered my own version based on what is said in wikivoice in the parent articles on the BLPs. While the sentence offered by Masem - Critics have accused Rubin of providing a prominent platform to the controversial speakers with alt-right, far-right, and nationalist viewpoints, including Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux, and Tommy Robinson - is definitely true, I am unconvinced by the "critics have accused" tagline, which implies that others have disagreed and also that only critics have asserted this, neither of which is supported by the evidence AFAIK. So I would prefer either something closer to my own version, or at least text that conforms to WP:BLPSTYLE. Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, there's no doubt that all four BLPs mentioned are indeed alt-right, far-right or nationalist (or a combination of more than one), so if Rubin has indeed interviewed those people, all you need is as reliable source saying that he has provided a platform for extremists (or equivalent wording). "Critics say..." is not ideal - either he has, or he hasn't. But we can't say it in Wikipedia's voice without an RS that actually says that Rubin is providing a platform for such people. Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The quality "provide a platform for controversial speakers" is an opinion, because the sourced articles do not give the impression that this is Rubin's factual goal with the show, so the "many critics" needs to be there as one point of attribution (though here, we can name the sources, "The Daily Beast and GQ claim Rubin has provided a platform..." In that phrasing, this also implies alt-right/etc. labels are born out from Daily Beast/GQ's assessment too. So that would be better. Alternatively, if there are more, and these just two, you could say "Critics, including The Daily Beast and GQ, claim Rbuin has provided a platform...". --Masem (t) 19:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

If we are committed to attribution, I would go straight for the Rebecca Lewis study in Data & Society, rather than any of the journalistic pieces, based on the quality of the source. And I would attribute directly to Lewis, not to "critics". Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The Lewis study is already mentioned in the article. We shouldn't use it to support the sentence/material in question. Springee (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Masem, except that if it's the Daily Beast and GQ then I would not include it anyway. We should draw a distinction between those sources that comment on the political hurly-burly, and those which are the hurly-burly. The Daily Beast is undeniably the latter, GQ probably somewhere between the two (there have been some very thoughtful pieces there but also some blatant rabble-rousing). Guy (help! - typo?) 20:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the Lewis report, that is probably the preferable source to use (doesn't appear to be SPS, not quite peer-reviewed), but that should still named. Or a way to work all three sources, something like "Critics have accused Rubin of providing a prominent platform to political extremists.(DB, GQ sources). Rebecca Lewis of Data & Society in a 2018 report stated that Rubin's guests are part of a network on YouTube with more extremist views that amplifies far-right politics. These guests include Stefan Molyneux, "a talk show host who promotes scientific racism,' Lauren Southern 'a Canadian citizen journalist who has since been barred from entering England because of her vehement anti-Islam and anti-immigration activism", and ..." (the quotes pulled from the report directly). You have plenty of material in that to be quoted to avoid the issue of bare labels, and probably plenty of names to pick from. (And man, that's a scary picture on those network graphs. That's an article in itself ....) --Masem (t) 21:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Masem, and why is "citizen journalist" so much like "independent researcher", in that the first word invokes a repudiation of everything normally understood by the second. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The Lewis piece is AFAIK the only scholarly study cited in the article, and definitely its highest-quality source. Why should we not cite the "providing a prominent platform" thing to her, since many of the journalistic pieces cited point back to her study anyway? Newimpartial (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The Lewis study was published by her own institute. It was not published in a scholarly journal. It is effectively a white paper by her institute. Also, her article says shows like Rubin's provide a gateway to more radical right material rather than act as a platform (other sources made that claim). Some scholars also disagree with her work.[[17]] Springee (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean, "her own institute"? She doesn't appear on its board or editorial team.

Also, are you proposing that Quilette piece as a reliable source on the topic? Newimpartial (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The institute that employs her vs an independent journal that published her work after review. I'm not proposing using Quilette in an article. What I'm saying is the Quilette author has credentials equal to Lewis and she points out issues with Lewis's work. You claimed that Lewis's work was at a scholarly level but that simply isn't the case. Lewis has some level of credentials in the field but the same is true of many scholars at CATO or The Hoover Institute. Since the work wasn't released via a scholarly review process this isn't the same as an article appearing in a real journal. Springee (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the Lewis piece was not peer-reviewed, but it is certainly "scholarly" in a sense in which the Quilette piece is not - the latter is anecdotal student journalism, while the former is a systematic study following an established methodology. Newimpartial (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yet someone with scholarly credentials points out flaws with the study (and rightly so). Quillette doesn't claim to be a scholarly journal but that doesn't mean the contributors lack the scholarly standing to criticize Lewis's work. Springee (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

An in-progess Masters degree is not a "scholarly credential", and I don't see any scholarly criticism in the Quilette piece. It is anecdotal political journalism and, if anything, uses a sloppy mischaracterization of Lewis's work to cast aspersions on it. Which is about what one can expect from Quilette - a straw man argument that will appeal to their readers' assumptions. Newimpartial (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You might review Lewis's limited credentials. Springee (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like she's a highly-cited researcher whose work appears in and is covered by mainstream sources (i.e. not Quillette), and she's a Ph.D. candidate at Stanford, where she teaches classes with a specialization in online disinformation and extremism. Those are pretty decent credentials. MastCell ^Talk 00:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• We describe people the way that reliable sources describe them; it's really simple. Reliable sources describe Molyneux and Southern as "far-right" and/or "white nationalist", so if we change that to simply call them "political personalities", then that's a bad edit, and a fundamental violation of WP:NPOV. It's an example of an editor inserting himself between the sources and the reader, and misleading the reader. It is absolutely not a BLP violation to describe someone as "far-right", or as a "white nationalist", if reliable sources describe them as such. MastCell ^Talk 00:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• I am in complete agreement with this. We don't whitewash (terrible word, but whatever) people's political and social positions if there are RS for those positions. Black Kite (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• MastCell, this, exactly. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with MastCell and Black Kite. If reliable sources call the individuals white supremacists, etc. we call them that. If the consensus of sourcing is that he's provided a platform for alt-right/white supremacist individuals, we say that as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with MastCell, Black Kite, TonyBallioni, and others. This is simple: we describe people (and groups, political parties, movements, etc.) as the high-quality reliable sources describe them. Full stop. Neutrality^talk 01:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

No one is suggesting we avoid the labels. My concern is using the labels in wiki voice with sourcing that is inadequate to support such labels in wiki voice. Again Masem provided a good alternative that address the wiki voice concern while still keeping the labels. BLP etc isn't something we dismiss because sources like Vox, HuffPo etc choose to use labels. Springee (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that we should label anyone in Wikivoice, especially when it's political in nature. WP:REDFLAG is also at issue here, as is WP:BLP and associated 3 core content policies. If the labels were science-based, that's a different story, but when we're citing news sources and published opinions, we use in-text attribution. All of the above instances are political in nature; i.e., the left accusing the right - which is reason enough to avoid stating anything in WikiVoice. Avoiding labels is not whitewashing, it's avoiding tendentious editing and/or subjecting ourselves to potential BLP liability - I'm saying the latter with a high level of RL experience. It doesn't matter who we are writing about because the same applies across the board; i.e., neutral, dispassionate tone, no subjective labeling, no ideological basis in Wikivoice. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This isn't "the left accusing the right". Reliable non-partisan sources routinely describing Molyneux (for example) as a white nationalist/white supremacist (e.g. [18], [19], [20]), and it's not helpful to misleadingly recast the issue in partisan terms. WP:REDFLAG isn't an issue either—it's hardly "exceptional" to claim that there are white supremacists active on the Internet, nor to describe someone as a white nationalist when they were literally banned from social media for promoting white supremacy. As for WP:BLP, it tells us to follow the sources, not to suppress or bowderlize their content based on editorial discomfort. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, it makes sense to distinguish mainstream commentators making goods faith contributions to political debate, from extremist grifters - whether they be animal liberation loons or neo-Nazis. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

No one, I think is saying to remove the labels, but labels are labels and are subjective and absolutely cannot be left in bare wikivoice, just as terms of praise or the like. I've been through this logic many many times before but you cannot avoid some type of in-line attribution with labels, whether that's a named source or some comment like "widely considered", but how to determine when to do that needs to be done by a literature survey to see how frequently the label is used. (That's beyond this discussion but I've talked to this point before, as well as how to apply those sources into the article). You can do this once on the respective talk page of that BLP's article and then the arguments on that label should become moot in the future. But key here is that just becuse "the media uses the label all over and we follow the sources" doesn't mean that we throw out impartiality and neutrality in wording of how we write that, and labels can never be objective by definition, we're just required to fine the right way to incorporate that language when its needed per WEIGHT/UNDUE.

That said, this article being about Rubin, bringing those labels onto those BLPs into here is difficult, because technically now, unless you have a mass of sources that talk about Rubin's show and the same four people as guests and using those labels, it gets into synthesis to combine those sources. If the sources talking about Rubin's show use those labels (not at a point that I can easily check) then absolutely we need to be stating the name of the sources and probably quoting here to take the labels out of Wikivoice. If they don't use those labels and WPian editors are pulling that from our other BLP, that's wrong. If those sources failed to id why those people were "problematic" save for a generic label, we can't fill in those blanks, not our job. Guy says it makes sense to distinguish mainstream commentators making goods faith contributions to political debate, from extremist grifters - whether they be animal liberation loons or neo-Nazis which, no, we can't. If the source failed to do this, we can't go and fill in those blanks. We can wikilink and let readers figure that out but we can't make that direct connection for them. --Masem (t) 20:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Once again I will point out that, if "we" are committed to attribution, the Rebecca Lewis piece is probably the best bet since it is not only the highest-quality source, it also discusses most or all of the "controversial" figures using appropriate labels - if there are any discrepancies between who Lewis labels in the study and who is discussed in the WP text, those should be easy enough to resolve.

This is not to say that I agree that attribution is required, which I don't. For Southern, as an example, Great replacement conspiracy theorist is not a "controversial label": it is how she is notable, and was essentially her job title for a period of time. Newimpartial (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I have a very very hard time accepting the idea that (any) "conspiracy theorist" is a career or job title - one actively earning money or the like (at its base that would be like an activist or a writer, etc.) Now, she appears to be self-stating that she accepts that, which is different, but we still need to be careful with using that term about her on Rubin's article. Again, you have material in the Lewis report to identity enough on this page about Rubin why she as a guest (along with Molyneaux, etc.) are why Rubin's show is problematic without having to resort to other nonattributed labels. --Masem (t) 21:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Could all of these guests accurately and constructively be called "right-leaning"? We are paraphrasing, are we not? If "right-leaning" or any other such umbrella term can be accurately and constructively deployed, why are we agonizing over more specific labels when those more specific labels serve political, pigeonholing purposes? This is not even the article belonging to Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux or Tommy Robinson. We are discussing the Dave Rubin article. It is bad enough that articles like the Molyneux article consist of nothing but label after mind-numbing label. Is it necessary to force people into political pigeonholes at other people's articles? These labels are meaningless, or close to meaningless, in my opinion. I think their main purpose is to dismiss people and the ideas and arguments that they represent. It is also a lot harder to explain their ideas and arguments than it is to simply pin a label on them. I favor using a simple, general term such as "right-leaning" (or something similar) to refer to all these guests when mentioning them at the Dave Rubin article. Bus stop (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

So you consider "right-leaning" to be synonymous with "white-supremacist"? Because I know a lot of right-leaning people who would be very offended that you'd equate the two. It's deeply misleading—and unfair to people who are truly "right-leaning"—to use "right-leaning" as a euphemistic code word for extremists and white supremacists. And since reliable sources routinely note the extremist nature of Molyneux's/Southern's views, it seems just plain false to pretend they simply "lean" to one side of the political mainstream. I don't think falsehoods are an improvement over clear, if unpleasant, truths. MastCell ^Talk 23:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

MastCell—isn't there an umbrella term for these enumerated guests on Dave Rubin's show? Couldn't we just call them all racists? A quick perusal of the articles of Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux and Tommy Robinson finds some references to race in each article. If there is a better term than "racist" we should consider it as well. All we are trying to do is refer to a collection of guests on The Rubin Report. I don't think that should entail in-depth, separate labeling of each guest. The question is—what do they all have in common? Bus stop (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Masem, some labels definitely can be left in wiki-voice. Jenny McCarthy is an anti-vaccinationist. Stefan Molyneux is a white nationalist. When there's no significant mainstream dissent, we don't need to weasel. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Based on prior discussions, I would agree that if we were at McCarthy's or Molyneux's articles - where a body of sources sit - these labels are ones that ones that can passed w/o attribution due to self-assertion. But this is where I put caution above, when we talk about them on another topic, we can't carry that language (including the ability to say in wikivoice) unless we have sources at the current topic also using that language. If all these sources talk that Molyneux is a controversial guest on Rubin's show for his extreme positions but do not at any point identify his white nationalist stance, we can't introduce that ourself, even though we could reach out to probably multiple articles on Molyneux to show where he self-states that; it is both an OR problem - guessing to what "extreme" stance the author was getting at, and a BLP problem because in less agressive cases WPians could introduce something that may be a NPOV. As a hypothetical, say there is a important piece of abortion-related legislation aimed to provide easier access to clinics, and we have a media piece talking about how the bill was set up by a legislator; while we would normally identify that party of the legislator, a WPian adding that the person was also a Catholic (reported in numerous sources but not the one about the bill), as to throw doubt to the purposes of the bill , would be inappropriate despite being true. If sources did call that out, we would be fine otherwise.

As a specific example, the Lewis report does not actually appear to use "white nationalist" at all, but she does get deep into Molyneux (in the context of a guest on Rubin's show) as "openly promotes scientific racism, advocates for the men’s rights movement, critiques initiatives devoted to gender equity, and promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories" (pg 37) so any of those describers can be attached to Molyneux to be clear of why he is a problem for being on Rubin's show. Of course, the other thing to consider is that as you are selecting blue linked names you could let those blue links speak for themselves rather than necessarily fishing in the report for descriptors. Lewis gives enough descriptors/labels to this central group (not all of Rubin's guest and not the Intellectual Dark Web ones) that we can tell they are the alt-/far-right extremist views that have influence and thus we don't necessarily need the specific labels on any individual. --Masem (t) 14:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

To make matters worse we have an explicit denial. Molyneaux says "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority."[21] Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

In that same article the Guardian uses "Canadian alt-right internet activist" for Molyneux in its own voice. It certainly wouldn't say "right-leaning" lmao. Newimpartial (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Newimpartial, we are keenly cognizant that many sources characterize Molyneaux in many bad ways, hence my suggestion concerning the use of the umbrella term "racist" to cover the group of people under discussion. Aren't Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux and Tommy Robinson all racists, according to at least some reliable sources? Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I actually dispute the implication that the Guardian, or others mentioned, are trying to day that Molyneux et al. are "bad". I regard "alt-right" and similar as essentially descriptive labels in this contexts rather than being used by the sourced to praise or condemn.

And my reservation about "racist" is essentially that it is insufficiently precise; e.g., I'm sure some reliable source somewhere has referred to Joe Biden as "racist", but this shouldn't be the same category. Newimpartial (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I chose the word "bad" out of many equally applicable terms because I believe the broad swathe of the American population roundly condemns "white supremacists". The overuse of labels in the absence of further explanation makes an article uninformative. Wouldn't we expect to find extensive quoting from Molyneux in his article showing the reader why he is considered a "white supremacist"? The man is verbal. He isn't a visual artist or a musician. His quotes could be included so that the reader could examine his words and see him in nuanced detail—or are all "white supremacists" the same? Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if that's how the figures are described by reliable sources. If such a description is used by a large number of sources, and if the description is not seriously contested by other reliable sources, then they can be used without attribution per WP:WIKIVOICE. It's not that hard to categorize people as far-right and alt-right based on their publicly stated social/political positions, and there's nothing exceptional about either of these descriptions. - MrX 🖋 20:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think people should be should be characterized as racist without attribution even at their own article much less at another article. "Racist" is the de rigueur criticism of everyone in the day in which we live. Trump is of course racist. It would virtually be negligent not to call Trump racist. Bret Weinstein was forced to leave his teaching position under the accusation of racism. There is no reason not to use attribution. The reader should be immediately apprised of the origin of the accusation. Bus stop (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Why shouldn't a racist be described as a racist? Because it could make some people uncomfortable? We're an uncensored encyclopedia. We should call things what they are. If there is serious dispute, we should use attribution and include non-marginal opposing viewpoints as policy requires. The overuse or misuse of the word racist as a convenient insult is not Wikipedia's issue nor does it apply to this discussion. - MrX 🖋 21:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The racist label may not be the best example to start from given that it is one of the "objective" labels that can be defined -- but it still has subjectivity to it. That is the nature of labels is that there is no formula or rules or anything like an objective, quantitative test for that purpose, and thus some people may use the label to describe a person as racist when others would not. Again, "racist" is a case where there's not as much subjectivity as other terms like alt-right, etc. so its a poor example but we still need to be careful about its use. It is not something that can be factually applied to person in wikivoice because there is no standard consistent definition of "is a racist" that every writer and reader can agree on that we can reliable use. Only long after the person has died and that is the long-term view of academics can we readily adopt that. Of course, with a living person and the current subject of discussion, and a survey of the reliable sources should a significant to overwhelming use of that label, we are bound by DUE to include that, but we still have to keep it out of Wikivoice, and again, how to do that based on that survey (whether named attribution is needed or not or just a general broad stance "is generally considered a racist."

But this situation is again unique that we're talking about a BLP Y in the context of topic X, and as I've explained above, it becomes a OR and NPOV to bring in labels that refer to Y but not in the context of X when writing our article of X. Eg: probably more than enough sources since Trump took office to say that he is widely considered racist, but it would be very much inappropriate to tag the article on "The Apprentice" declaring Trump racist there without specific sources making said connections.

Also, statements like Template:Why shouldn't a racist be described as a racist? reflect this thinking on WP that needs to be toned down that leads to a lot of the conflict in the AP2 and other topic areas, in this drive that those BLPs that are on the "bad" side - the alt-/far-right area like Molyneux, Trump, and so on - that we need to document every wrong they have done. I've said this before, but BLP articles - of anyone - are not supposed to be laundry lists of all the bad things they are done. They need to be written as summaries of their life. If they have led controversial activities, that's fine, but we should be summarizing that, not documenting every time a news story comes out. Attitude that we need to make sure labels are applied reflect that same stance. It is importance that when there is a clear stance of the media (not cherry-picking one or two sources but when >25% of sources regularly reporting on a BLP) label a BLP then we should not be ignoring that, but we should definitely avoiding trying to wiggle every solitary opinion if its not widely shared. We need to be thinking much more center-of-the-road/conservatively (not in the political sense) here as we write article on controversial BLP and topics related to them, even though there is the drive to use WP to try to be the force to good to show how bad this people are... we just can't. We have to be neutral and impartial in our approach though we certainly are free to include the media's majority stance appropriately. --Masem (t) 00:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

This illustrates what is wrong with discussions on Wikipedia. It's not only a hijack of the original topic, but it's built on faulty assumptions and broken logic. - MrX 🖋 11:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

We have to strike a balance between Expressions of doubt and Contentious labels. On the one hand, we don't want to imply that there is any possible doubt that these people are far right, on the other hand we don't want to use the term to denigrate them. That must be done on a case by case basis. In general avoid the term when it is redundant, use it when it is not. For example, don't say "x is a member of the far right American Nazi Party." But do say, "The American Nazi Party is a far right organization." TFD (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"Racist" is meaningless in the hands of those most likely to use the term. Therefore we should always use in-line attribution. Not only are there no objective standards of "racist" but a social justice warrior is unconstrained by definitions of such terms. Critical race theory is rooted in postmodernism. The sources most likely to level claims of racism are the sources least likely to be employing anything like objective criteria. The woke left will call someone "racist" whether they are or not. Bret Weinstein was forced to leave Evergreen State College because he was "racist". But was he? Not even remotely. A couple of weeks ago Dr. James Lindsay writes "My friend and I discussed some of the breaking points that were crossed for us and for people we know. For me, it was something between seeing unfair witchhunt-like haranguing applied to public figures I respected (falsely accusing them of racism and sexism), the subversive manipulation of language, and, especially, the brazen attacks on science coming from both the activist and scholarly communities around Critical Social Justice. This happened for me a few years ago. For my friend, it was the undeniable real racism and blatant double-standards at the heart of much of the Woke activist enterprise. For some of our friends, the public defense of riots in Woke language—like “whiteness is property,” so it’s okay to burn down a business—was a bridge too far. For others, it was being bullied into allyship that’s never good enough. For so many more, it’s just the outright racism." Wikipedia should never be repeating verbatim charges of racism without WP:INTEXT attribution. Any such claims should be kept out of Wikivoice. This applies most strongly to living people. The reader should be apprised which source is leveling the charge of racism. Bus stop (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Why did this discussion change from two specific political descriptions to racism? - MrX 🖋 11:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be a response to this Trojan horse repeated here, which I deftly avoided but which seems to have ensnared other, more experienced editors. Newimpartial (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes! Trojan horse describes it exactly. I don't know why I didn't recognize it—it's not like I haven't seen this before. - MrX 🖋 20:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

One particular situation would be where the label is synthethized from other sources. Say, there is a reliable source for the fact that one event gathered controversy because the 'right-wing provocateur' John Doe attended it. Then, someone would combine sources that do not detail this controversy itself, and the end result would look something like: "controversy arose, because the far-right white nationalist[1][2][3][4][5] attended the event". This seems very common. Only the main biography should include details and multiple sources at this level, not some short mention elsewhere. I also recall there was some edit-warring over how to desribe the DSA in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's bio, but not the DSA article itself. Silly, right? --Pudeo (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Silly, but understandable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Refocus

I love it as much as the next guy when editors hijack a thread with thousand-word jeremiads about how critical race theory is The Real Threat Facing America. But this thread started with an actual, specific question. To get back to it: it is a fact that David Rubin uses his show to give a platform to far-right extremists and white nationalists, like Southern, Molyneux, etc. We are in the business of conveying facts to our readers. We are not in the business of finding creative euphemisms to suppress or minimize those facts. These guests' appearances on Rubin's show are relevant not because they're "controversial", but because they are extremists—that context is clear in reliable sources, and therefore should be clear in our article as well. MastCell ^Talk 19:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, this discussion has died down so I have a question, where from here? This is contentious material related to a BLP with what looks to me to be no consensus. Normally this would mean remove the material. However, in this case the question isn't inclusion so that wouldn't be the correct action. I think we have consensus for inclusion in some form. The question is inclusion of what? My read is one side is saying we can follow the parent article and include labels in Wikivoice and/or labels that are supported by the parent article even if they are not supported by the sources in the Rubin article. The other side is saying that the Rubin article's sources are not sufficient to apply the labels in Wikivoice so we should use some type of attribution in the Rubin article. How do we handle this in a BLP, no-consensus state? Springee (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Springee—the question is "labels" versus "label". One umbrella term of reference should cover the group of people referenced in the Rubin article. In other words—what do they have in common? The answer is possibly seen in the original post initiating this discussion: "This text[1] was removed on the Dave Rubin page, making it unclear why it was controversial for Rubin to host extremists such as Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux and Tommy Robinson." What is the umbrella term of reference? The term of reference is "extremists". I am saying this not because I think "extremists" is the most apt term. I am simply saying this because it is one blanket term (umbrella term) to cover all the people referenced in that sentence which is found in the Rubin article. Only one term should cover all such people if they are to be referenced from the Rubin article. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I see your point but I don't think I like "extremists" as the universal descriptor. Again, I think Masem's proposal is best because it is the best compromise between those who want specific labels in wiki-voice, those who feel the labels used must come from sources within the Rubin article (thus attributable) and those who want to avoid the labels in articles not about those being labeled. "Extremist" is probably a true descriptor but I don't think it captures what makes them controversial. An extreme-cyclist or ultra-marathon runner is an extremist but not in a way that is controversial. At the same time I can see the issue with "controversial". Someone like Dennis Prager is controversial for what many feel are misleading or deceptive arguments regarding relatively mainstream topics. Masem's proposal adds more detail to the specific controversies in question without putting things in wiki-voice. Springee (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing how alt-right or nationalist are WP:LABEL-quality labels; they're neutral political descriptors that many people use for themselves and which are used widely in academica. Even far-right is an academic terms with a widely-agreed definition; I don't agree that it is automatically the sort of value-laden label that LABEL describes. When such sources are widely used by the sources and not in serious dispute, they should be used. Otherwise we end up in a situation (which we seem to be approaching now) where any neutral, objective description of their politics, no matter how well-sourced, will be rejected because some people view those politics negatively. A political slur is a WP:LABEL; describing someone as a nationalist is simply describing their politics. There is room to argue over whether those descriptors are well-sourced enough or accurate enough, but I would strenuously object to the assertion that calling someone eg. a nationalist automatically falls under WP:LABEL. --Aquillion (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how your comment is a reply to what I was saying. I think that could/should be a separate topic but the issue here is really how do we move forward with a no-consensus state. We do not have a consensus for the current wording but I think we do have consensus for including something. The question is what. Springee (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"Alt-right" is perhaps the epitome of LABEL because it is vastly subjective term, no one agrees where it starts or differentiates itself from the "right" or the "far right". Labels do not necessarily need to be "negative" though most are, but core is their lack of an objective measure (not one that "the media says so, so we go with that"). A "nationalist" itself may or may not be a label depends on context, but a "white nationalist" becomes more of a problem as there are very subjective bounds on that definition, with a grey zone that separates it from the more mainstream "conservative" GOP platform if you go by some media reports. The fact that Molyneux self-identifies as a white nationalist is an exception not a rule as many that seem to be called white nationalists try to deny association with the term, which should clearly make it a label for our purposes. Being a label doesn't invalid using but it requires numerous careful steps to keep it out of wikivoice and apply the appropriate type of attribution to the level it is used in the media. --Masem (t) 13:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The Economist writes "Editor's note: This article has been changed. A previous version mistakenly described Mr Shapiro as an 'alt-right sage' and 'a pop idol of the alt right'. In fact, he has been strongly critical of the alt-right movement. We apologise."[22] What does it say about the term "alt-right" if an astute publication like the "The Economist" can make this error? Bus stop (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Stephen Wiggins

Stephen Wiggins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This biography of a living person is being repeatedly edited to add material against policy. BLP policy: "include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability" This edit introduces a violation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Wiggins&diff=971497311&oldid=971022196

Mossimo Giannulli

Mossimo Giannulli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mossimo Gianulli is a fashion designer. He is also married to Lori Loughlin. Both have been charged with crimes relating to fixing college admissions. In the infobox, it says "criminal penalty: Pending (Announced on August 21, 2020 at 11:00 am)". I have never seen anything like this before. Is that acceptable? Mo Billings (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

It is tabloid journalism-like, saying "Criminal penalty: Pending (Announced on August 21, 2020 at 11:00 am)". It contains too much information. "Wikipedia is not written in news style". Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The page originally looked like this and it's been like that for nearly a year. I added the "criminal penalty: Pending (Announced on August 21, 2020 at 11:00 am)" and then the whole thing was removed with no mention on the criminal status. Wouldn't a WP:Consensus on the talk page be the best way to resolve this? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes a consensus arrived at on the Talk page is fine. Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

No, let's agree here that it is unacceptable to put "pending" for criminal penalty in any infobox. Mo Billings (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Only if we agree here that we can return the page to as it was before both of us edited it. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

That's really not how this works. You should start a discussion about the infobox on the talk page as suggested, but the "pending" stuff is staying gone. Mo Billings (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Unless if COnsensus agrees with me, then it's staying there. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's unlikely, but it is always a possibility. Someone else removed your similar edit at Lori Loughlin, by the way. Mo Billings (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind that one. They brought up a valid point that she's more notable as an actor than a criminal. The same cannot be said for her husband hence why the page noted his criminal status for months.GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to reword the section about the affair to make it more encyclopaedic and remove the duplication which existed, along with irrelevances like quoting the maximum possible penalty for the offences they're charged with (since when did we do that?). Don't know if it will 'stick', though. Neiltonks (talk) 12:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Are redirects subject to BLP?

Just saw this RFD (most of them leaning towards deletion) and this makes me wonder, are redirects to BLP pages subject to BLP rules? FMecha (to talk|to see log) 20:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear FMecha: Steel1943 answered your question elsewhere, with this diff. —Unforgettableid (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• BLP applies to all aspects of WP, so redirects must also be vetted appropriately. "Hostile" redirects that are otherwise not well-sourced by RSes should not be included even if they are "popular" nicknames for certain BLP, as these will appear on Google and we should not help spread. But like for example Drumpf to point to the Last Week Tonight episode focusing on Donald Trump where John Oliver introduces that term, and where that term stuck as a name for Trump, is fair game as it is well documented. But we don't have similar for things like "The Hair" or "The Orange One" which I know are popular on message boards and the like. --Masem (t) 20:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• WP:RNEUTRAL is the guideline that covers this. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Bruce Loveless, COI editing, and the presumption of innocence

• Bruce Loveless (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bfloveless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 89 § Bruce Loveless

Bruce Loveless is a retired US Navy rear admiral. Recently, I've cut his article down from 8 kilobytes to about 6.5 kilobytes. I've removed an unsourced list of military awards, plus various other unsourced content.

About a year ago, User:Bfloveless removed one sentence of sourced text. I've now restored it.

But I've been having second thoughts about having restored the text.

• A) WP:DNOLT says: "When editors blank articles ... they may have good cause. Stop and look carefully before assuming they're disruptive".
• B) WP:SUSPECT says: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:BLP § Public figures: Editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."
• C) I also wonder whether or not Bruce Loveless meets our notability criteria (WP:BIO / WP:NSOLDIER) at all. If not, then we can just delete the whole article and ignore all of the above.

Your thoughts and suggestions would be welcome. Or, of course, feel free to edit the article directly.

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't report allegations unless there is a conviction in a court of law, and that conviction has been covered by reliable, secondary sources. The exception to that is WP:WELLKNOWN, in which case it will be so widely reported that it's just in every newspaper and magazine that you see, in which case there is no longer any point in protecting their right to be innocent until proven guilty, but this means that the allegations or incident need to be well known (well covered), not just the person by default. Zaereth (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Loveless is part of a very very big scandal (see Fat Leonard scandal). There's a ton of reporting on Loveless's involvement. These aren't "allegations", they are criminal charges. I disagree with Zaereth that this interferes with the presumption of innocence. Loveless has been charged and is presumed to be innocent unless and until a court finds him guilty. There is no reason to exclude this content. Mo Billings (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Dear Mo Billings: I hear you. Still, I think that either you haven't read our WP:SUSPECT policy or you simply disagree with the policy. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  I have read that part of the BLP policy and I wholeheartedly agree that we should consider if it is appropriate to include information about criminal charges in BLPs. In this particular case, I think it is appropriate to include the charges. Mo Billings (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Unforgettableid: I just noticed that you removed the information about charges from Loveless's article. I don't know if you've taken the time to Google search the case, but the charges are most definitely "well-known". Also check the table in Fat Leonard scandal which lists all of those charged, including Loveless. This isn't an unkown person getting a traffic citation. Please reconsider your edit. Mo Billings (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Slate Star Codex

• Slate Star Codex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Questions:

• Should the author's full name be published?
• How should a source published under the author's full name be cited, if the first answer is "no"?
• Should the author's full name be revdel'ed from the article or talk page, if the first answer is "no"?

For context and additional discussion on these points, see June/July discussion and July/August discussion.

Arguments for "yes" to question 1 include: the author's full name was published when one of the author's blog posts was re-published in a book; the author's full name appears in medical articles; and the author's full name has otherwise been used professionally. Arguments for "no" to question 1 include: the author has recently expressed the desire to halt publication of their full name; the author has otherwise consistently requested that their full name not be connected to their blog in published media, to the extent that previous publications that revealed the author's full name were taken down; and the author's full name otherwise fails the WP:BLPPRIVACY check.

Arguments for "full name" to question 2 include: WP:V requires citation information that is as accurate as possible. Arguments for "first name only" to question 2 include: the spirit of WP:V only requires as much information as readers need to easily locate the source, and the first-name-only citation includes adequate information for this purpose.

There has been relatively little discussion on question 3.

Pinging David Gerard, BrokenSegue, Ken Arromdee, TheBlueCanoe, Gavrielyosef, Gbear605, YechezkelZilber, Mo Billings, SkylabField, VQuakr, Scarpy, King of Hearts, GeneralNotability, and Barkeep49.

Enterprisey (talk!) 20:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit: "Subject" changed to "author" per below comment by Zareth. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Probably not / yes / as is. This has been discussed at length on the relevant talk page. BrokenSegue 22:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• For question 2, the first name citation does look weird, but why do we need a name at all? It is clear from context who wrote the article because of the quote that the chapter was taken from SSC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Because faking reference information is bad practice - it's an RS, the standard for use in Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Omitting something is not the same as faking information. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Bowdlerising it to the point where someone came along and thought it was literally an error - as actually happened - would, I think, count, even if you were to claim it was in a good cause - David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
        • I do not agree with what was actually done (i.e. "Scott" or "Scott S."). I simply think that omitting the name entirely is the right approach, and there is no error there. Not all references have to have authors attached to them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• "consistently" is a highly questionable claim - for instance, a number of blog sources took down the name at his request when he took the site down in June. His full name has never been a secret, as demonstrated by his academic use of it in connection with the blog name, and I've followed this guy's work since 2010 and his real name has literally never been a secret. His new claims to have kept it a secret are factually incorrect.

His name is used in connection with the blog only in a single RS - but it's an RS where he would have put it there himself, as professional academic work. And it's absolutely a solid RS for Wikipedia use, for noteworthiness of the blog, and for the fact that he has acted to publish his real name and its connection to the blog in recent times.

Furthermore, I think you've phrased the question badly - the subject's full name was published when one of the subject's blog posts was re-published in a book is in passive voice, as if this is something that was done to him - and not something he did himself.

I would say: correctly credit the academic RS, which is important to the blog's notability, as faking RS references is really not a good Wikipedia practice; don't make it prominent in the body of the article.

Do not further revdel - given the circumstances, the revdel's to date on article and talk have arguably been abuses of the deletion process. I appreciate BLP considerations erring on the side of caution, but this is getting silly.

I've put {{not a ballot}} on this discussion, as this is an off-wiki cause celebre - David Gerard (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I encouraged a discussion to be placed here at AN and encouraged Enterprisey, when he contacted me via email, to add an explicit question about revdel. I feel prepared to support whatever consensus the community arrives at. However, David has now said in a couple of places, the revdel's to date on article and talk have arguably been abuses of the deletion process. I stand by the 3 revision deletions I did and would welcome a discussion about whether they were an abuse of the tool at my talk page, ArbCom, on a relevent noticeboard but don't want to derail this forward looking discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they were in bad faith; but I am of the opinion they should stop going forward (as I say above) - David Gerard (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

This is just a short rebuttal to a single point above, but you appear to be claiming that Alexander did not try at all to hide his full name until 2020. There is at least existence proof of the opposite from 2018 at [23]. In it Alexander mentions that he did not link to a journal article written by him because he did not want to share his real name. He has certainly not been perfect at maintaining secrecy, but he did at least try. Gbear605 (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Scott's concerns about the public linking of his full name to the blog are otherwise well-documented and uncontroversial. In addition to Gbear605's link, more examples are this 2019 blog post (search for "real name"), this 2017 blog post, and this 2013 discussion. Scott's awareness of the Streisand effect explains the lack of further examples. That aside, to repeat VQuakr from the talk page, the source is unambiguously identified – and can thus be "correctly credited" – even without its authorship information. Third, I stand by my revision deletions and, echoing Barkeep49, welcome further discussion on the subject. Finally, the documentation of {{not a ballot}} recommends against preemptive use and I have observed no evidence of external canvassing (besides the IP edit, and yet), but I will leave its applicability to this discussion up to others. Acknowledgement: the examples and Scott's justification come via the research efforts, which I appreciate, of some people in the SSC community. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I said it was an off-wiki cause celebre, and you've just literally said Acknowledgement: the examples and Scott's justification come via the research efforts, which I appreciate, of some people in the SSC community - this is, in fact, a case for such a notice - David Gerard (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• 2. Bad question. There is no reason to cite those articles at all. The only reason they were added was to force the issue (to put it charitably). They are only notable as evidence about the spread of his name. 98.114.54.138 (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It helps to establish the blog's notability. Also, it was originally added with no source at all. BrokenSegue 14:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    • No, resume padding may establish the notability of the author, but not the blog. No one notes those articles. When people note the blog, they don't note the existence of reprints. They don't care about such validation. Some people note the profession of the author, but never formal publication. 98.114.54.138 (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
      • It's literally the blog's academic credibility, in the article about the blog - David Gerard (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
        • The wikipedia article makes no explanation of why it cites the article, certainly not credibility. It does give other examples of academics citing the blog, which is a measure of academic credibility, but these are by academics in other fields who probably have no awareness of the republished articles. Since no one connects the articles to the blog, they do not contribute to its credibility. 98.114.54.138 (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
          • The wikipedia article makes no explanation of why it cites the article It literally does - you're now making trivially false claims of fact in support of your position - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
            • For everyone's information, the only thing that the article says is A post from the blog, "No Time Like The Present for AI Safety Work", was reprinted as a chapter in The Technological Singularity: Managing the Journey.. I can see why the anonymous user considered this to not be an explanation while you consider this to be an explanation. Given the three other citations in the paragraph, it's certainly not the only source establishing credibility. Al Gharbi 2018 and Campbell 2018 both provide academic credibility while Chivers 2019 establishes credibility in a non-academic source (a pop-science/philosophy book). Perhaps the article should still be included, but its removal would not change the article to show the blog as significantly less credible. Gbear605 (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• The desire for privacy seems reasonable enough. Benjamin (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• I believe there is a disconnect here. If the privacy of the name is of paramount importance, we shouldn't be using a reference that has the full name. If we decide to use the reference anyway, we should follow standard practice and credit the author by their full name as published in the reference, not by first name or pseudonym or "Scoot S" (which is what's in there now). If the aim is to protect the identity of Scott Alexander, we aren't doing a good job and we are also giving people incorrect information about the reference. My position is either use the reference and give the correct information, or don't use the reference. Mo Billings (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • If this was removed, would it be the first time a relevant RS was removed from Wikipedia because a BLP subject put their name in it? I mean - you're seriously proposing removing the academic reference in which the author revealed his full name, because he (actively) chose to reveal his full name in it. This strikes me as bizarre - David Gerard (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    • It strikes me as bizarre that we are pretending to be hiding his name but giving a shortened version of his name and providing a means of getting his full name in a couple of mouse clicks. It's a charade. Mo Billings (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
      • It's a compromise. Scott himself has said his interest is not in making his name unfindable (that is now impossible) but just harder to find. This is in keeping with that spirit. BrokenSegue 19:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
        • I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think there is room for compromise with genuine privacy concerns. If this isn't about protecting someone's privacy but about "following the spirit" of making his name "harder to find" then you're changing my opinion towards including the reference with the full author name. Mo Billings (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• This looks like trying to put the genie back in the bottle at one remove. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • This would, I think, be an accurate characterisation - David Gerard (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• It seems to me that his academically-published work is central to his notability and significance. I'd imagine the bar for removing it is pretty high. I wouldn't imagine that we should include his name in the main text of the article unless that NYT article actually comes out or something, but I think that removing it from the references list when anyone can find the information by just following the reference is a pretty extraordinary level of deference that would require some pretty extraordinary arguments to justify. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  The blog is known first for its importance and influence in the rationalist community. The book chapter reprint is comparatively unimportant; the article has other information on the blog's impact in academia, and I'm sure we could find more. The discussion here shows a consensus I agree with those above saying that we either have a full citation or none at all. I think it's perfectly fine to leave it out. For the record, I agree that it would be nice to include all relevant sources, including the blog chapter reprint, if we could. But BLPPRIVACY is clear on the matter: no full name. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC); revised 20:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  The academic work is a book from the LessWrong rationalist community, about topics promoted by said rationalist community, and used by said rationalist community to show its importance. If that's what the blog is known for, the reference is direct support for that.

You launched this discussion with a question slanted to your preferred outcome, then sought off-wiki backers to support your preferred outcome, then questioned the presence of a notice as to off-wiki attempts to influence the outcome. At this point you're just pushing the subject's line repeatedly - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• BLPPrivacy seems to offer only two routes for including the name: where widely reliable sources cover it and where it can be inferred. It can't be inferred, because they specifically want it gone. We do not have have wide enough reliable sources including it to be crystally confident about the first. While the "genie in the bottle" complaints are interesting (and I don't know the level of historic attempts to seek privacy) I don't believe they're so relevant. BLPP doesn't offer a prior exposure route, and, at a minimum, in unclear cases we should default towards providing privacy, that is, remove the full name. I'd say some archiving is probably sufficient and a full OS is not needed, but I'm open to thoughts on that. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• It seems like a reasonable BLPPrivacy-compliant solution to omit both the surname and the chapter which uses it. Haukur (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• The purpose of citing the reference is for WP:V, and that can be accomplished without including the full last name in the citation (e.g. using Scott Alexander [Redacted] or Scott S. or something similar). We should try to respect Scott's preferred public name for the same reason we should respect whatever people want to be called in a WP:BLP article (preferred name, preferred pronouns, etc). I'm not sure why basic respect for someone is so controversial and it seems too many people are keen to say something like "look, I know this is how he prefers to be addressed in this context BUT OH MY GOD THE |last1= ATTRIBUTE WON'T CONTAIN HIS LAST NAME AS IT APPEARS ON HIS GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDENTIFICATION SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO BE JERKS AND INCLUDE IT, SORRY." Forgive me if that sounds like an awful awful excuse and if I have a difficult time understanding the reasoning there, if there is reasoning, because it looks like someone trying really really really hard to find a loophole to include his full legal name in the article. I'm sure we're all good faith editors here and that's not actually anyone's intention, but of I was ten years younger and representing New York's 14th congressional district, I believe the term I would use for that is "not a good look." - Scarpy (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Is the name sourced to The New York Times? That might change things. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No, The New York Times has not published anything as of now. The only sources that I know of for the full name being linked with the blog are original research and an oblique connection in the republished blog post (the book lists Scott [Redacted] as the first author and that it was republished from Slate Star Codex). Gbear605 (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

In that case we should abstain from including the name I would say. Open to changing my view if there is better sourcing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• The original question is flawed, since the person we are discussing is not the subject of the article. As far as I can tell, the person we are discussing is not notable enough on his own to have an independent article about him, so the first question I would have to ask myself is: Does using the full name add any value to the reader's understanding? In other words, is it necessary for the reader to know the full name in order to understand the article, or would it read just the same without it? If the answer to former is no and the latter is yes, then I would opt to leave it out.

It would be a different matter is he was notable on his own right, but unless his name has been published in a multitude of high quality sources, or unless there is a very good reason for publishing his name as demonstrated by at least one source --making it clear that the name itself is absolutely necessary for understanding the article-- then I would simply leave it out.

As for the other questions, I guess that depends on how the source is being used. Arguments here say the source is needed to show the notability of the blog, but if that is really the case, then can the blog really be that notable if it cannot handle the loss of a primary source? That doesn't seem to wash. Is the source being used to support some info --about the blog-- being used in the article, or is it just to show that he wrote a book? If the latter, then I would say omit the source. If the former, then use it cautiously. I'd probably just use the first initials, but the real last name, since that is what is needed for someone to look it up. We may not be able to hide the connection, but that doesn't mean we need to make it obvious.

All in all, I would always prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to matters of privacy, and from what I've read here I don't see any overriding public need to know. Zaereth (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

"Subject" changed to "author", thanks for pointing that out. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• no/no/no. Once we aren't into revealing his name, questions 2 and 3 are moot. The concept of using backdoors to publish information that is not supposed to be published is disingenuous in my view. Not publishing a detail = not publishing it. Not looking for multiple backdoors and shorthands for it. This also implied purging all the histories that infringed on earlier decisions about the above Jazi Zilber (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  YechezkelZilber, question 3 is only relevant if we answer no to question 1. It is what is the correct way to enforce that. A person could definitely be no to q1 and q3 viewing revel as too extreme a remedy but that doesn't seem to be what you are saying. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Late here, but not late enough not to respond. Sometimes I get the impression in this discussion that people have OCD to put in every bit of information they can find and in addition want to spite Scott for demanding something that contradicts their OCD. Arguments like "there's no room for compromise with genuine privacy concerns" in the context of Scott only wanting to make his name harder to find are absurd. People aren't efficient robots trying to optimize their every action, so the fact that Scott isn't making his name literally unfindable doesn't mean he can't have privacy concerns.

Furthermore, this argument ignores the *way* in which Scott believes his name will harm him; he doesn't want people who only know his name (such as patients, employers, etc.) to connect it to the blog--not people who know about the blog connecting it to his name. The fact that his name appears in an obscure place that is not prominent in Google does not implicate the former problem, so it doesn't show that his privacy concern isn't genuine, nor does it show that leaving the name out won't solve his privacy concerns.

I also agree with the point that the article is about the blog, not about Scott, and knowing his real name doesn't help you understand anything about the blog. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

More eyes/possible violation at Alex Morse

• Alex Morse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Alex Morse, a young gay mayor, used gay hook-up apps as an adjunct professor hooking up with numerous students. He says all were consensual.

Oh and he’s running for Congress.

I think the lead needs to be purged of some of this per Undue. Would appreciate other eyes to be sure. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The section as currently written is an egregious BLP violation, as it leads with the accusing organization's own highly dubious characterization of the allegations, rather than their substance. My attempt to frame it more neutrally was reverted.[24]--Trystan (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Eben Alexander (author)

Wikipedia continues to promote a libelous and defamatory source, without providing Wikipedia users with the very factual counter articles.

This page currently refers to a source that has been discredited: Dittrich, Luke (August 2013). "The Prophet: An Investigation of Eben ALexander, Author of the Blockbuster "Proof of Heaven"". Esquire. All facets of this reference and its libelous and defamatory claims should be deleted from Wikipedia, in the interest of delivering a factual account. At a minimum, Wikipedia readers should be aware of the serious flaws in it elucidated by the Robert Mays article. Most importantly, this article includes links to primary source references, like the video of Alexander and the Dalai Lama, that readers can check for themselves, supporting the factual nature of its conclusions. Wikipedia users deserve this access to primary source material to make up their own minds. Eben Alexander was never found guilty of malpractice, and was not terminated from any position "for cause"-- these are the facts to be clarified by dismissing the Dittrich article.

The evidence discrediting Dittrich comes from this article: Esquire article on Eben Alexander distorts the facts. Available from: The article is detailed and worth reading to clarify this claim. Here is their conclusion: "To me the Dittrich article is shoddy and irresponsible journalism—shoddy because of Luke Dittrich's and his Esquire editors' evident failures: failure to consider alternate explanations (rainbow), failure to check with the cited witnesses (Phyllis and Betty Alexander), failure to verify information with additional witnesses (Holley Alexander, Michael Sullivan and others), failure to check with medical experts (on the likely cause of coma), failure to check again on crucial testimony of the sole cited witness (Laura Potter), failure to read the book carefully (Dr. Wade’s statement about Alexander’s coma), failure to verify conclusions via other witnesses (Holley Alexander and Sylvia White), failure to exercise care in asserting erroneous facts (use of drugs was not mentioned in the book), failure to exercise care in quoting and interpreting recorded remarks (Dalai Lama), and failure to exercise common sense in interpreting the meaning of statements (Dalai Lama). And Dittrich's article was irresponsible because of the impact—the real harm—the resulting distortions have caused."

Dittrich was previously an award-winning journalist, yet this Esquire piece is one of the last major articles published by him. His curious disappearance is likely related to the publishing industry being aware of his inability to write factual articles without sensationalizing them through distortions of fact. Wikipedia users should be aware of these facts about Dittrich, if you insist on keeping the reference in the article.

Another example of Dittrich's unreliability concerns the criticism he received after posting an excerpt of his book Patient HM in the New York Times. Over 200 scientists related to MIT sent the following article concerning his distortion of facts: Correcting this erroneous information on Wikipedia greatly improves the reliability of this article to reflect the facts of the case.

The Mays article makes excellent points criticizing Dittrich's sensationalist writing (for Esquire's experiment with a $1.99 paywall, no less, all in an attempt to profit from the distortions of such sensational writing in trying to debunk a book that was #2 for the year 2013 on the New York Times nonfiction bestseller list, published in over 40 languages). Wikipedia users should not be fooled by Dittrich's fiction - they can make up their own minds, given that Mays includes primary source links, like the Alexander-Dalai Lama video, that completely rebuts Dittrich's erroneous interpretation of the events. In the interest of getting closer to truth, Wikipedia should provide the Mays information to them - let them make up their own minds based on all of the facts, not just a one-sided, corrupt version. Thanks for your attention and time.Ealexander3 (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

References

See explanations from the last times you brought this up here and here - MrOllie (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Alexander, as MrOllie notes and has been explained to you again and again and again, neither Wikipedia nor its editors have any control over the writings of those you accuse of libel. If you want to accuse those people of libel and get them to retract their statements, talk to them. If you think that neutrally reporting what others have said about you perpetuates a libel, talk to WMF legal team. Complaining on this board won't change those avenues of redress no matter how many times or how often you complain. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand Wikipedia trusting Esquire because they are supposed to be a reliable source, but I know that in this instance their fact checking was non-existent, and basically devolved into threatening Dr Laura Potter, cajoling her into agreeing to the article even though she said they twisted and distorted her statements. If Wikipedia insists on relying on the Esquire article, all I am asking is that they also post the counter argument from Robert Mays published in a peer-reviewed medical journal (a far more reliable source than Esquire under their sensationalist editor, David Granger), one that is very detailed and relies on externally verifiable primary sources, like the video of the Maitripa College graduation where anyone who takes the time to watch it will realize that Dittrich's version of events, as reported in the Esquire article, is not what happened. Using this primary source, anyone can validate for themselves that Dittrich fabricated his version of events to defame and libel me. All I am asking is that Wikipedia say, for example, "The Esquire article has been found lacking in journalistic integrity, as revealed by investigator Robert Mays." Wikipedia's insistence on leading with my malpractice history, when I was never found guilty of malpractice, is most misleading (on average, neurosurgeons in the US face a lawsuit every 5 years they are in practice, so everyone has been sued, many multiple times, but none of that is relevant if none of the suits found one guilty). Likewise, saying I was terminated from two institutions is false - I was never terminated for cause, yet Luke and Wikipedia insist on promoting that libelous and defamatory falsehood made up by Dittrich. If you must insist on continuing to support the libelous and defamatory Esquire article, please just inform Wikipedia readers that it has also been very much disputed, and debunked, and include the reference to Robert Mays' work.

Also, the link above for "WMF legal team" failed - please give me an actual link so I can talk with your attorneys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealexander3 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

[My apologies for the formatting error with these 3 references - not sure why they weren't handled normally, and somehow got placed in an article several spaces below this one].

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321361929_Eben_Alexander's_Near-Death_Experience_How_an_Esquire_Article_Distorted_the_Facts

^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-inGigVypl4

^ https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1012370

Ealexander3 (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

References

The legal department's contact info can be found here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The Journal of Near-Death Studies is almost certainly not MEDRS, and potentially not a BLP-compliant general RS either (definitely cannot be used to state anything in wikivoice without attribution). It is not indexed in any reputable scientific/medical databases that have more than the minimum quality standards (e.g. SCOPUS, Web of Science, DOAJ, Google Scholar Metrics). It's not even among the 10,000 scientific journals in the Journal Citation Reports database, so it has no calculable impact factor. So no, we can't cite "studies" from it, and I don't know whether you could use RSOPINION for Robert Mays' article or if it would be disallowed under group-SPS (prohibited for BLPs). JoelleJay (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Maggie Rose

Recent edits by the subject's agent, followed by a new WP:SPA. Genre warring, essentially. Would appreciate more eyes on this. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted another SPA on Rose's page. Meatsgains^(talk) 23:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Neil Woodford

Can people keep an eye on the Neil Woodford article? Neil Woodword is a prominent former British fund manager who's fund, Woodford Investment Management collapsed last year for which he is primarily blamed. BLP violating vandalism (presumably by a vengeful investor) diff stayed up for 3 weeks before being removed by another IP user. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I’ve watchlisted it. Neiltonks (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Akilah Hughes

Akilah Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There seems to be a continued campaign by alt-right editors to add a section about a lawsuit that was thrown out of court and did not set legal precedent as the judge did not rule in the matter. The information therein is poorly-sourced and is irrelevant to this person's public figure status. The talk page for this entry provides evidence of bias with the main editor claiming that the lawsuit is why the individual represented by this entry is a public figure, when that is not the case. Continuously adding this copyright dispute section to this entry is akin to adding a copyright dispute section to the Sony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page for every YouTube video in which a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) claim was issued. These standards must be applied evenly across Wikipedia entries. If the editors in question would like to add the legal proceeding in question to an entry about Copyright Law or Digital IP, they will still encounter issues as this lawsuit set no legal precedent. This malicious editing has been a problem since the genesis of this entry.Kiwifruitbowl (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I see that you've removed the claims for now. They were only supported by a court document, so editors should not add them back per WP:BLPPRIMARY, at least until they've found reliable, third-party sources supporting them. The article also now has extended confirmed protection which should minimize disruption for the time being. Woodroar (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ice_Poseidon

Reporting a possible biographies of living persons violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1302:D546:18F3:AF36:D25D:2037 (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide more details on what you feel is a problem? I had a quick look at Ice Poseidon and can't see any obvious problems. There is some slightly controversial stuff, but most of it looks to be sourced and seems to be an essential part of his notability. And the sources I checked don't look too bad although some aren't in English so are not something I can evaluate. Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay I did find one thing which wasn't supported by the source. Is the issue of the FBI raid what you were referring to? If not, it would be helpful if you would provide more details. Nil Einne (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Belinda Peregrín

Until the last few weeks, hundreds of sources reported that Belinda was born in 1989 (example). It was until recently that Belinda's website started to say that she was born in 1992. Several IPs have edit-warred about it and the best solution I could find was to include both of them with a note clarifying the birth years. My experience working here tells me that once the protection expires IPs will edit-war once again. My question is, what should it be done here? Should it be left as it is now, should it say "born 1989" with the note clarifying it, or should it say "born 1992" with the note clarifying it? © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 03:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Jennifer Pritzker - question about appropriate family detail & DOB

My initial concern was a DOB without even a source, certainly no indication even one source would meet WP:DOB which says that DOBs for living people must be well known to be included. Then I noticed all the family details under "Early life". Are these really appropriate? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The links to her relatives? If they are notable enough to have articles (which may be questionable, I don't know), I don't see why we wouldn't link them here. I could see removing Ratner (her mother remarried him after Pritzker was very much an adult, and he's questionably notable anyway). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Editing Dan Gibson (author)

• Dan Gibson (author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article is not about Dan Gibson. It is to discredit him and his work with accusations that has no ground. Just because he proves that Muhammad was born in Petra... (what is against the teachings of the Quran)

link to docu (on request) 8Jg5d3w4ROQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiko Rover (talk • contribs) 16:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is verging on a WP:ATTACK page at the moment, so something needs to be done. I’m wondering if this guy is notable, as a self-published author, so maybe WP:AFD is the route to take? Neiltonks (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Doug Chapman

The page has been constantly, wrongfully edited for over a year now. The offender is usually a user who goes by the name Marylandbum34 and this user repeatedly makes edits that are damaging to an individuals professional career regarding employment. The harassment is weekly.

The URL for the page is below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Chapman_(American_football) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C2:4380:AB80:E01A:448:8993:B396 (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

All the edits are adding unsourced versions of this diff, and are clearly violations of BLP. Gbear605 (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Almost certainly blocked user PorchMonkey34 returning under a new alias. SPI opened with CU requested to find possible sleepers. I have also requested page protection to be reinstated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Page has been EC protected, which makes it harder for new socks to vandalise it. We’ll need to wait for the SPI to complete in respect of the current vandal but it looks very WP:DUCKy Neiltonks (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Fairly sure the older User:SinclairCEO and User:Marshall77 are the same editor although it probably doesn't matter if they aren't linked given the age. Nil Einne (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems also User:VikingsWorstDraftPick. The long term ECP should hopefully stop this nonsense. Nil Einne (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Jeremy Runnells

• Jeremy Runnells (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article regarding Jeremy Runnells and the CES Letter is written with a great deal of bias. For a biography of a living person, it appears to be out of compliance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.40.110 (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you describe some of the bias here? Without knowing any of the details, it seems to relatively fairly describe Runnels and the letter. Gbear605 (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The article is certainly not in shape that would warrant a G10 speedy deletion, as an IP and a new account have tried to do. —C.Fred (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ratko Rudić

In the box with the ratios of the coach Ratko Rudić, the wrong information was inserted, about his current club and the trained teams.

Unfortunately, for the Cascais Water Polo Club (which is unrelated to this situation) and for the Portuguese water polo, coach Ratko Rudić is not part of this team, nor of any other in Portugal.

Whoever made this change, did it for fun or out of malice. If that were the case, I ask you to promote accountability mechanisms and correct the information accordingly.

As a registered member of the Wikipedia community and as a member of the board of the Cascais Water Polo Club, in Cascais, Portugal, I appreciate the diligence. Thank you.

Best regards Luis Albino — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalbino (talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

David Daniels (countertenor)

• David Daniels (countertenor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an ongoing content dispute discussion at Talk:David Daniels (countertenor) regarding sexual assault allegations made against Daniels. As I have noted on the article talk page, I believe the inclusion of the accusers' names violates WP:BLP's assumption of privacy for people who are not the subject of our articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Mark Z. Jacobson and legal wording

Does anyone want to take a look at a question posed by an IP today Talk:Mark_Z._Jacobson#Final_or_not? The secondary source, Retraction Watch,[25] says Jacobson was "ordered to pay legal fees" but the IP suggests "the court granted Clack and PNAS's motions for attorneys fees and costs" would be a more correct wording. It's clear from the source that the authors of the source understand that the order has not been finalized, and that they chose the headline that they did regardless. But I also get the IP's point. If anyone's wondering, Retraction Watch has previously been the topic of discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.[26] Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Will this policy WP:BLP applies for dead people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources

From what i can read and understand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Notes, WP:BLP cannot be applied for dead people who are confirmed dead by reliable news sources. Can anyone clarify this? Jehowahyereh (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BDP, BLP can be applied for confirmed dead people in limited circumstances:

The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.

Of course you still have to use reliable sources to confirm that they are dead.

Gbear605 (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. So will in this page Deepak Sathe applies as I could found a lot of reliable articles stating he is dead. Will WP:BLP be applicable to that page ? Jehowahyereh (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jehowahyereh:, Deepak Sathe is already reported in our article as deceased and since he is the pilot of Air India Express Flight 1344, this would be a non-controversial report of a person's death. However, as Gbear605 states, BLP standards will still generally apply for some time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Jehowahyereh, in addition, WP:BIO1E is still relevant here regardless of whether WP:BLP1E is relevant. Gbear605 (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

We can close this, nothing in the notes section linked to supports that recently deceased individuals aren’t subject to the policy and a quotation from that very same policy page proves that they are.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Lenny Gomulka

• Lenny Gomulka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Everything in this article has been fully verified. We are asking that the administrative caption at the very top of the article be deleted as all needed citations have been included and verified. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgomulka (talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I've added extra citations and removed the template, since the citations should be sufficient now. Gbear605 (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Leon Black

Could we have some editors take a look at this BLP where an editor is repeatedly add in a lot of UNDUE innuendo and other disparaging content here. SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm torn here. Some of the information (connections between Black and Jeffrey Epstein) seems to me to be due - it's covered extensively in reliable sources including Bloomberg and the New York Times - but the initial information was perhaps overly disparaging. Emir of Wikipedia, you removed all the information in [27]. Do you believe that all of it is undue and should not be included? Deltagammaz, you attempted to re-add the information in [28], do you think that all of it should be there? Gbear605 (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It should be there in some form, but I think the way it was done was undue. Thought it would be easier to Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Rikesh Chauhan

This is a page presumably created by the person himself, mainly aimed at self-promotion. The citations are poor, in many cases, blogs and the author's own website. Going by Wikipedia's standards, this page must be removed immediately: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:

is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research); relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see #Using the subject as a self-published source); or relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vettipayyan123 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the issue here is not BLP standards, since the information isn't contentious, but rather simple notability. Of all the sources on the page, none of them are both reliable and contain significant information about Chauhan. Perhaps he is notable, but the current sources do not show it.

• https://www.bbc.co.uk/events/ezc5d4/acts/a6p9mb only lists RKZ (Chauhan's stage name) as a performer at the event
• https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qspy3 says that RKZ performs ‘Superstars’ from his ‘Words of Adrenaline’ Mixtape. and has a link to a clone of the Wikipedia information on Chauhan
• https://www.stereofox.com/album-reviews/album-review-handbook-x-rkz-x-supreme-sol-triad-ep/ is not reliable and only barely about Chauhan.
• https://www.thecalmzone.net/donate/ doesn't contain information about Chauhan as of today.
• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1989674/ doesn't contain information about Chauhan as of today.

And all the other sources are self-published and about him or are tweets, so they can't prove notability.

In addition, one editor who has been active since 2011, AlexisBelieve, has contributed more than half of the article and almost all of their edits (158/189) have been to this page. This seems plausibly WP:AUTOBIO.

Gbear605 (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Laura Loomer

The page is riddled with libel and personal attacks, and the sources cited repeatedly do the same, cleanup is very overdue, but Wikipedia is blocking any but your "trusted" admins from editing it, some of whom appear to be the responsible individulas for using this page as a partisan defamation campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4C04:6290:3524:2B7:A472:1A3C (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest taking your concerns to the article talk page, and proposing concrete changes backed by reliable sources. That usually works best. And it will definitely help if you drop the term "libel," but of course are free to suggest that things are in violation of WP:BLP. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

If you can give specific statements or sources which are problematic, for example, "In the sentence that says XXXX, that is incorrect because YYYY" and also include in your assessment links to reliable sources that support the changes you want to make, that would be most helpful. Vague statements like the above are not helpful for improving articles. --Jayron32 19:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Young Dolph

The article on Young Dolph lists 2 different birthdates. Unfortunately I do not know the correct birthdate only noticed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.117.16 (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Both references used to source the birthdate say August 11, so I’ve changed the article to consistently reflect that. Neiltonks (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Evo Morales

Would editors mind having a look at this edit at Evo Morales please?[29] Is the implication of pedophilia a breach of BLP policy? One of the sources (panampost) is considered unreliable but the other sources are not in English and are unfamiliar to me. Burrobert (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I looked at this and I would, perhaps should under living person wikipedia guidelines, delete it for the time being. It is very newsy and totally unproven as yet. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)