Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:20, 27 August 2019

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.

Arvin Vohra

Arvin Vohra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are several incomplete or out of context quotes on this page, which is the page for the potential Libertarian Party presidential nominee in 2020. Examples:

1. Rather that quoting the original person, quotes are coming from people quoting the person. The original quotes are easily accessible in the articles referenced on the page. I have fixed one of these, but there seem to be quite a few. 2. Opening sentences of satirical articles are placed as if serious, without including relevent information of the rest of the article. 3. Relevant information missing, literally including political views! Why are a candidate's political positions missing? These are easily available through project votesmart and other sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.195.214 (talk) 02:29, March 17, 2019 (UTC)

theophile obenga

Too much basic and critical information in missing from the English article; such the 1974 Cairo Symposium, his colaboration with Cheikh Anta Diop, his training of scholars in Europe, America, and Africa, etc. At least translate the French article into English !!!

Too much bias in the talk section , question credentials, professor status, etc. This makes the article REEK of racism, implicit and explicit bias.umm ok

Jo Swinson

This page is being spammed with 'she is a Tory' stuff and needs to be controlled.

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

Meghan Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Julie Bindel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Janice Raymond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mermaids (charity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I need to bring something to the attention of the more general Wikipedia community. At different Wikipedia pages, including some BLPs, people are being labeled TERFs or categorized as trans-exclusionary radical feminists. For the folks who are unaware, "TERF" is short for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist." Usually, people who are called "TERF" object to the term and consider it a slur. When this is pointed out, there is usually push-back from a transgender editor or an editor who agrees with labeling these people as TERFs. Some examples of where this happening are the articles at the top of this section. You can see the "TERF" disputes on the talk pages of "Meghan Murphy," "Julie Bindel," and "Mermaids (charity)." One example: Talk:Meghan Murphy#First sentence description TERF vs radical feminist. When WP:WIKIVOICE or WP:LABEL are brought up, they are dismissed, including the use of "transphobic" at the TERF page.[1] The drama has extended to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

Now, looking right at WP:LABEL, if it's not appropriate to label a group "a cult" or "a sect," or person as a "racist, perverted, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, mysogynistic, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, denialist, terrorist, freedom fighter, bigot, [or] neo-Nazi" in Wikipedia's voice, how is it appropriate to label people "TERFs" in Wikipedia's voice or to categorize them as such? At the TERF page, even though editors have tried to get "transphobic" removed from the lead and "transphobic hatred" removed from the "Coinage and usage" section of the page, or have suggested recasting it as a compromise, it remains. This means that calling a person a TERF is basically equivalent to calling the person transphobic. However, the TERF page lets folks know that "TERF" is used more broadly these days, beyond its original use. Folks have different opinions on what is transphobic or what falls under the "TERF" category. When editors say that calling people TERFs or transphobic in Wikipedia's voice are WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:LABEL violations, transgender editors or other editors who agree with labeling these people as TERFs or transphobic say that the sourcing for the "TERF" or "transphobic" wording is strong. However, I ask you all to look at the "Opposition to the word" section and compare it to the "Responses to opposition" section. The former section has the stronger sourcing. When this is pointed out, transgender editors or other editors say the the opposing side has less weight and they prioritize American sources over British sources because they say that TERF ideology is stronger in Britain. At the Meghan Murphy talk page, I said that editors can't even agree to categorize people as "climate change deniers." I want to ask all of the editors who commented on the "climate change denier" dispute higher up to please take a look at this and offer their opinions. Am I allowed to ask these editors here in the same forum with pings? Peter Gulutzan, Anythingyouwant, M.boli, Marcocapelle, Guy Macon, Slatersteven, Volunteer Marek, agr, Pincrete, Milowent, Niteshift36, Masem, Jonathan A Jones, Bluerasberry, Bodney, Hob Gadling, Collect, Mangoe, SemiHypercube, JBL, Zaereth, RevelationDirect, O3000, Hanyangprofessor2, UnitedStatesian, IuliusRRR, Newslinger, and Adoring nanny. Leaving a note about this at WP:Village pump (policy), Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch too. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping; I don't have a dog in this fight, but I will say this: if a neutral, reliable source refers to any person using any term, I believe WP can repeat that term in the article covering that person, and can categorize the person in an appropriate category(ies) that use(s) that term. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I have no idea where Halo Jerk1's ping list came from, but I would like to point out that the term "TERF" seems no more inflammatory than such political labels as "white supremacist" or "alt-right", and WP practice in such cases has been to follow the terms reliable sources use in our BLPs (as opposed to sexual orientation or religion where a higher threshold is required for both labels and categories). Newimpartial (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a pinged editor who just learned of the term TERF five minutes ago, I want to state my agreement with Newimpartial. New terms will always be created, and as an encyclopedia we are going to reflect what reliable sources use. And I may add that there can be a downside to excluding terms used in reliable sources; the NXIVM cult guys fought on that page for years to remove the word "cult", God forbid someone got involved with them because our article was inaccurate.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ping list came from #RfC: Category:Climate change deniers. That is what is meant by "At the Meghan Murphy talk page, I said that editors can't even agree to categorize people as 'climate change deniers.' I want to ask all of the editors who commented on the 'climate change denier' dispute higher up to please take a look at this and offer their opinions." The argument you are making about use of "TERF" is similar to the argument people made (and continue to make) about use of "climate change deniers." And as with some people who are climate change deniers preferring to be called "climate change skeptics," some people who are called TERFs prefer to be called "gender critical." Why you, one of the main folks championing use of "TERF," think it should be exempt from WP:LABEL and other rules is puzzling. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without expressing an opinion one way or another about the issue being raised here. Let me say that pinging 28 editors is excessive. We all have our favorite issues which we think are The Most Important Thing In the World and which we are convinced that Simply Everyone Must Pay Attention To, but the fact remains that those of us who are interested in BLP issues already have the BLPNB on our watch list. Halo Jerk1, please don't ever do this again. Think of the annoyance if everyone with a cause pinged 30 editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Guy Macon. I was following what I saw at #RfC: Category:Climate change deniers and in other places on Wikipedia where a lot of editors are pinged because it involves a dispute or a renewed form of the dispute they were involved in. Some people participate on the BLP noticeboard, but they don't have it watchlisted. I wanted the opinions of the editors who voted on the "climate change deniers" dispute because I see this as similar and I just can't see why the TERF category should be allowed if the "climate change deniers" category isn't allowed. However, I will keep what you said in my thoughts. I don't wanna annoy people. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough. You need to agree to stop. Wikipedia:Canvassing#Spamming and excessive cross-posting says "Indiscriminately sending announcements to editors can be disruptive for any number of reasons. If the editors are uninvolved, the message has the function of 'spam' and is disruptive to that user's experience". Expressing an opinion on whether we should call someone a "climate change denier" does not make a person involved in the completely separate issue of whether to call someone a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" or any number of other terms. You appear to think your behavior is acceptable. IT ISN'T.

It is OK to ping multiple users (or inform them on their talk pages) if they have been directly involved in the specific issue you are discussing (but only in ways specifically allowed in Wikipedia:Canvassing). That isn't what you have done here. You have pinged a bunch of editors who have never been invoked in the topic you are discussing. Do it again and we will be discussing your behavior at WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The words "trans-exclusionary" are a prefix to radical feminist to describe in a precise and accurate way, that person's anti-trans views, based upon the premise that recognizing trans women as women damages the rights or freedoms of women. People who have become notable for their TERF views include men as well as women and self identified trans women. I cannot get very excited about category debates, however WP:LABEL is not being breached by the correct use of "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" to describe people who are precisely that, based on their own publications which promote both radical feminist views and trans-exclusionary views such as rejecting the recognition of trans women as women, making a big issue out of trans women using women's toilets, or claiming that "trans-activism" (presumably anyone who supports transgender equality) "erases lesbianism".[2] None of the BLPs at the start of this thread is made in the least bit controversial by stating that these people who are highly or solely notable for their self promotion as anti-trans pundits, are correctly called "trans-exclusionary radical feminists". The repeated lobbying against and blanking of "trans-exclusionary", just because the BLP subject says those accurate words are a slur, is not a reason for us to start censoring Wikipedia.

By the way, the statement at the start of this tread "When this is pointed out, there is usually push-back from a transgender editor or an editor who agrees with labeling these people as TERFs." looks to my eyes very much like an attempt to shame or scare our very few openly trans editors from contributing to trans related articles. I hope that impression is my mistake, and not the result of an unpleasantly hostile tactic to suppress contributions. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"looks to my eyes very much like an attempt to shame or scare our very few openly trans editors from contributing to trans related articles". And this comes from the same editor who said in the "First sentence description TERF vs radical feminist" Murphy talk page discussion: "By the way, Pyxis Solitary, there is no such thing as "trans ideology". If you continue to spout unsourced damaging nonsense that so blatantly attacks all trans people this way, you should be blocked or banned from Wikipedia in line with the Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions applying to gender related topics that you were alerted to in May this year" . (That last bit refers to this notice she/he left on my talk page about a candidate for deletion.)
Threatening an editor with Arbcom d/s, because I said: "her history regarding transgender issues is that she is not against trans people, she's against trans ideology and transgender rights legislation. It's a fine line, but an important distinction".
The goody two-shoes drivel is pure hypocrisy. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Could you try to avoid creating juvenile personal fights or forum shopping your perceived grievances please? You were not mentioned in anything I wrote here, neither did I reference any of your contributions. I have no idea why you wish to defend a statement that appears to casually target transgender Wikipedians as being a problem for Wikipedia articles about transgender topics, or dismiss my observation of this being an issue as "goody two-shoes drivel". Thanks a lot. --Fæ (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His comment referred to the statement by Johnuniq:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You like to assume the worse, huh? I responded, at my talk page[6], and below with sources, but my talk page ain't gonna be a place for us to duke things out. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact is that these people are identified as TERFs by large numbers of reliable sources. A number of people dislike the label, so I would support renaming the category to a more neutral term such as "Anti-transgender in feminism". Guy (Help!) 13:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Dislike" is not normally how Wikipedia decides on what words to censor. What policy supports that approach rather than sources and evidence? --Fæ (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest policy of them all: don't be a dick. It's a contentious label, it requires attribution in text, so using it as a category is a serious problem that can easily be fixed by using a more neutral term that encompasses their admitted and acknowledged views on trans people without being gratuitously offensive. Guy (Help!) 07:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because calling people "dicks" is being deliberately hostile and unnecessarily sexual, "DICK" was changed to Jerk years ago, but I guess you know that. It's not a policy, it's an essay, it's not even a Wikipedia essay, and even that essay tells you to not do what you have just done, but I guess you know that too. How about sticking to actual policies when lecturing someone while wearing your sysop hat? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment If multiple high-quality reliable sources apply a label to a person, then we can also adopt that label. That said: I don't think that we necessarily have strong enough sourcing to describe Meghan Murphy as a "feminist" or a "trans-exclusionary feminist" in Wiki-voice. Both descriptions are contested. We do have plenty of sources saying that her stances on those issues have led others to claim that she is anti-trans, and that controversy is probably the main reason she meets WP:GNG, so that debate should be reflected in the lead. Nblund^talk 14:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per others above, if reliable sources refer to a subject as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist, then our articles may as well. I think the safe choice is to attribute claims of trans-exclusionary politics unless IAR applies. So cases where the subject themself adopts the label or the label is applied by nearly all sources. As for categorization, I'm not sure whether that's appropriate in most instances per WP:BLPCAT and WP:NONDEF. Unless someone is known primarily for trans-exclusionary politics, inclusion in such a category is not appropriate. Wug·a·po·des 22:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, but Meghan Murphy is the paradigmatic case if someone whose primary claim to WP:N is precisely that. Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the sources. This is not complicated: apply WP:V and its subsidiary policies such as WP:WEIGHT, and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, just as we would with any other contested political label.

And please, listen to Fæ, and drop the hostility to trans editors. All our editors — gay, straight, trans, cis, non-binary, radfem or whatever – are entitled to contribute to wilkipedia without being accused of being POV-pushers just because they ask that Wikipedia articles include all perspectives. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

It seemed that so far 7 favored attribution in this case, 2 favored Wikivoice, and 10 didn't specify.

Pinging:

User:UnitedStatesian, User:Milowent, User:Someguy1221, User:Seraphimblade, User:SportingFlyer, User:Slatersteven, User:Softlavender, User:JzG, User:Wugapodes

Thank you for your time. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads1, please remove me from your summary, and preferably remove it too. Please ask people to place themselves on such a scale, rather than attempting to do it for them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to avoid offense. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. So, for me, it's not a simple binary. If reliable sources dispute among themselves whether the term is applicable, we note the dispute over it without taking a side. If reliable sources widely use the term, but the subject disputes it, we state it as factual—subjects can dispute anything, but if reliable sources frequently ignore such objections and state it as fact, we do the same. We might note briefly that the subject disputes the characterization, but we don't permit a simple objection to reduce it to "A and B and C and D and E say..."; at that point, we say what the sources do. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade gets it right. This is not a simple binary, and Seraphimblade's summary is a good overview of how to approach this. We follow the independent reliable sources, not the subject's preferences. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm also not really okay with being counted as offering blanket opposition to using the phrase "trans-exclusionary" in cases where reliable sources also use it consistently. Nblund^talk 22:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already made myself pretty clear, and my points were according to standard Wikipedia policy. Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem that has not been addressed in this discussion when referring to "sources". Time and again, sources that meet the criteria for reliability are disputed and/or removed from this and other articles with a trans-related subject when said sources are from conservative media (or deemed unsympathetic to a personal POV), for example: this one deleted The Daily Wire, AfterEllen, The Spectator, and Murphy's "Why I'm Suing Twitter" in Quillette, which existed in the content about Twitter for some time. There is also nitpicking about the validity and acceptability of sources, for example: 1, 2, 3, 4 (I responded to #4). There is an obvious pattern at play here, and it is not WP:NPOV and what WP:RS stands for (which, by the way, states: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective ". In the minds of some editors, the only valid sources are those that criticize or support the criticism of public figures such as Meghan Murphy. Pyxis Solitary yak 03:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UnitedStatesian, Masem, Seraphimblade, SportingFlyer, Slatersteven, Softlavender, and BrownHairedGirl, it's good that you are for WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE. Milowent says "we are going to reflect what reliable sources use." Wugapodes says, "I think the safe choice is to attribute claims of trans-exclusionary politics unless IAR applies. So cases where the subject themself adopts the label or the label is applied by nearly all sources. As for categorization, I'm not sure whether that's appropriate in most instances per WP:BLPCAT and WP:NONDEF. Unless someone is known primarily for trans-exclusionary politics, inclusion in such a category is not appropriate." And I think that what Wugapodes says is reasonable, and is the correct course. This is what ThoughtIdRetired and Colin M were seekin' at Talk:Mermaids (charity). This is what Crossroads1 is for. This is what Rhinocera and EllsworthSK were seekin' at Talk:TERF. This is what Rhinocera was seekin' at the Meghan Murphy page. The intro there now, thanks to Rhinocera, says, "Her views on transgender issues led to Murphy being labeled a trans-exclusionary radical feminist or TERF, a label which she rejects and considers to be hate speech.[7] That follows WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE.

What folks have been objecting to is saying things in Wiki's voice. What folks have been pointing out is that quality sourcing is lacking on both ends. Editors in this thread have talked of "third-party sources" and "multiple high-quality reliable sources," but most of the sources on both ends are opinion pieces. This prompted Rhinocera to say "Fae, Newimpartial, when you cherry-pick news articles and op-eds that support your point of view, and ignore or misrepresent news articles and op-eds that oppose your point of view because you dislike their authors, of course it will look like reliable sources agree with you. News articles and op-eds from the reliable sources in my user page show that 'TERF' as a term is the subject of acute public debate, and as such cannot be used by Wikipedia in an objective way to describe someone. The sources I provided are not any less reliable than the ones currently provided in the article. I would like to point once more at WP:BLPCOI, since I believe your strong personal views on the matter are clouding your judgment."[8] Newimpartial's response was "Rhino, by your own account you are citing IHE and two op-eds. Sure, The Guardian and The New Stateman are RS, but per NEWSORG, opinion pieces are not to be generally used for descriptive statements, and you are giving us opinions only. It is also worth noting again that this is a BLP of a Canadian subject, so the way terms are framed in specifically UK sources (where trans-exclusionary sentiment among feminists is stronger, according to our TERF article) does not necessarily apply to the subject if this article. We have many citations in this article from reliable (including mainstream) news organizations; let's try not to water it down."[9] Newimpartial says this, but the TERF page is full of opinion pieces, with some being used to state things in Wiki's voice. If sources for "TERF" are so high-quality, then why does the "Opposition to the word" section have stronger sourcing than the "Responses to opposition" section? And we should really prioritize American sources over UK sources because "TERF" ideology is supposedly stronger in the UK? Who gets to decide that? Opinion piece sources? Where are the academic sources? And does anyone actually agree with Newimpartial saying "It is also worth noting again that is a BLP of a Canadian subject, so the way terms are framed in specifically UK sources (where trans-exclusionary sentiment among feminists is stronger, according to our TERF article) does not necessarily apply to the subject if this article."?

"TERF" being considered a slur, a term that is often used to silence voices (especially women's voices) or against lesbians for their same-sex attraction, isn't just being reported on by "TERF sources" or "anti-trans" sources. Inside Higher Ed says, "For some, using the word 'TERF' means calling out transphobia where they see it. For others, the word is a slur that has no place in academic discourse."[10] Daily Nous says, "'TERF' is widely used across online platforms as a way to denigrate and dismiss the women (and some men) who disagree with the dominant narrative on trans issues. The acronym stands for 'Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist', and historically marked a difference within radical feminism. Although its usage is becoming ever broader, one of the groups it targets are lesbians who merely maintain that same-sex attraction is not equivalent to transphobia, another is women who believe that women's oppression is sex-based, and are concerned about erasing the political importance of female bodies."[11] This facet ain't even covered on the TERF page. If it were added, it would mostly like be removed. Daily Nous also says that seven philosophers stated that TERF is "at worst a slur and at best derogatory." The Economist required its writers to "avoid all slurs, including TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist), which may have started as a descriptive term but is now used to try to silence a vast swathe of opinions on trans issues, and sometimes to incite violence against women."[12] The New Statesman says, "The term TERF - 'trans exclusionary radical feminist' has become internet shorthand for 'transphobic bigot'. The odd thing is that most people hold beliefs which could see them labelled a 'TERF'." It says, "At the weekend a letter was published in the Observer, signed by 130 people, which called for open debate in universities and criticised the silencing or 'no platforming' of people whose views are deemed transphobic or whorephobic." It also says, "What gets repeated in public is that the TERFs are simply bigots, attacking a small and oppressed minority out of irrational fear and loathing. They are accused of disputing trans people's right to exist, and of inciting violence against them. If that were true, the no-platforming would be justified. But with very few exceptions it is not true. What gets people labelled TERFs is not their opposition to the fundamental rights most trans people care about. Rather it is a form of political dissent." They additionally say, "In some circles it is considered transphobic for women to question the presence of people with openly displayed male sexual organs in spaces like communal female changing rooms, or for lesbian women to refuse to recognise those people as potential sexual partners (a resistance sometimes referred to as 'the cotton ceiling', a phrase which smacks of misogyny and male entitlement). It isn't just radical feminists who find this problematic: some trans women do too. Is that really just irrational bigotry?"[13]

BrownHairedGirl girl said, "And please, listen to Fæ, and drop the hostility to trans editors. All our editors — gay, straight, trans, cis, non-binary, radfem or whatever – are entitled to contribute to wilkipedia without being accused of being POV-pushers just because they ask that Wikipedia articles include all perspectives." Please listen to Fæ, who has repeatedly disparaged, and been hostile to, editors across trans topics?[14][15][16][17] This ain't about not being civil to trans editors, and the trans editors who are gatekeeping particular articles aren't the ones seeking to include "all perspectives" anyhow. The issue is the sourcing, the weight allowed for particular perspectives, and the way the facets are framed. Editors aren't trying to hurt trans people. Masem said it best at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: "To be blunt, talk pages of mainspace pages cannot be 'safe spaces' where certain concepts are forbidden. There are going to be ideas and concepts that some editors may feel offensive, but if the context is wholly within the scope of trying to discuss improvements for the article, that's 100% acceptable use of a talk page. The case that Johnuniq [mentioned] is troubling because it seems to be aimed to stifle ideas that, while controversial, seem appropriate to discuss.[18]. Please read the other comments there too. Seems to me that Fæ often sees offense where it's not intended. EdChem, I meant no harm. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Jerk1, you may have meant no harm, but that third paragraph is some of the most selective quotation I have ever seen. Even for the Inside Higher Ed piece you have not preserved the balance of the article, and for the others you are pretending that op-ed opinions are speaking with the editorial weight of each RS. Where did you learn to do that?? It isn't the way sources are used, at least not on WP or anywhere else that sources matter. Newimpartial (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about selective quoting, with what you do at these pages with your opinion pieces? Those quotes are to highlight what that paragraph is about, which is that "TERF" is considered a slur by some. It is considered a term that is often used to silence voices (especially women's voices) or against lesbians for their same-sex attraction, and it isn't just "TERF sources" or "anti-trans" sources saying this. We know that you don't like when this is mentioned, but it's there in credible sources. Your opinion pieces are no more credible. You said, "you are pretending that op-ed opinions are speaking with the editorial weight of each RS. Where did you learn to do that?" That's what I want to ask you. Folks have tried to get you and others to see the light on that. Folks have told you that articles should not be based on opinion pieces, but you still persist. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Jerk1, I am talking about your presenting an Inside Higher Ed piece describing a conflict as if it were endorsing the "pro-TERF" perspective on that conflict, through selective quotations. I am talking about your presenting op-eds representing FRINGE (anti-trans) viewpoints as being equivalent in WEIGHT to thoughtful and reasoned analyses by research journalists and scholars. What will it take to convince you that presenting two equal sides in this issue is purest FALSEBALANCE? Newimpartial (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're incorrect. That's why most others so far agree with me about WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE. It's why you went and contacted WP:LGBT.[19] You saw the tide rolling in my favor. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more time, we follow the sources. It is not up to you, or me, or anyone else, to decide what to say on Wikipedia. It is up to those sources. We reflect them, not second-guess or dispute them. If the consensus of reliable sources is that someone should be called that, we follow their lead. If not, we don't. If in dispute between those sources, we reflect the dispute without taking a side. If the sources are in agreement, but the subject is not—well, too damn bad, we reflect what the independent reliable sources say. It is up to the sources, not up to us, what we put in our articles. We distill and reflect our sources. We do not dispute or change them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, so you don't understand WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE? Have you not read those pages? The way you are talking shows a misunderstanding of how we follow sources. Is WP:WIKIVOICE not explicit in what we are supposed to do? It is up to us when it concerns how we apply and follow sources. Opinion pieces being in agreement mean nothing since they are opinion pieces and there are a lot of other opinion pieces that disagree with them. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Jerk1, do try not to live up to the portion of your username before the "1". I've been editing Wikipedia both far more and far longer than you, so don't you presume to tell me what I do and don't understand. If reliable sources are in widespread consensus, we don't "attribute" that, because that would itself violate NPOV. If sources are in widespread consensus, we state what they have to say as fact. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, I'm gonna continue to follow what WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE say. Opinions do not become facts because they are widely reported. But you do you. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The intro there now, thanks to Rhinocera, says....". Not as of 03:43, 4 August 2019. It is not permitted. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responses.[20][21]. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A point: between both LABEL, IMPARTIAL and YESPOV, we are not required to presume what RSes say as fact, if it is believed by consensus of editors to be a contentious statement to make in wikivoice, but per WEIGHT, if multiple RSes use labeling terms towards a person, it is absolutely not appropriate to ignore it, assuming all other parts of BLP are met, namely if the person would be considered a public figure. A label should only really be considered factual in wikivoice if we have years of scholarly review of that person to make it an accepted academic fact that has withstood the test of time (eg Duke). As I noted before, just now looking at the article in question, it is written quite appropriate for a label outside of wikivoice, following all this advice (Her views on transgender issues led to Murphy being labeled a trans-exclusionary radical feminist or TERF, a label which she rejects and considers to be hate speech. --Masem (t) 04:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, thanks. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Jerk1 I have made no comment on you at all. I offered some general advice to Fæ without referring to any specific incident. My position / post at ARCA was making two major points: firstly, I was noting that the ArbCom motions do appear contradictory and clarification is warranted; secondly, that it is important to tailor actions to deal with cases of deliberate provocation and trolling, accident / misunderstanding / ignorance, and campaigning. Each of these calls for different responses, no matter the identity of the editor nor the category of their action. Following on from the latter, I offered some advice to Fæ who I have seen on wiki in different situations over the years. I offered no comment to you but since you have pinged me, I will say this:

(1) If you wanted to talk to me about my ARCA post, the appropriate venues are on that ARCA thread or on my user talk page. Pinging me to a BLP/N discussion in which I was not previously involved to comment on a post at another venue is not generally appropriate. It could be seen as canvassing, which is one reason that I'm not going to address this thread at all.

(2) As far as I can see, you have not participated in nor been mentioned in the ARCA thread. Some of your post here seems to be about the ARCA. If you want to comment on the ARCA, my advice is to comment at the ARCA.

(3) Your comment that "Fæ often sees offense where it's not intended" is problematic in that those who are on the receiving end of prejudiced remarks and who have experienced being the outsider and a member of a minority are precisely the people most likely to see prejudice and are best positioned to calling it out. If you are making comments that Fæ sees as offensive, I'd suggest stopping and thinking. Is what Fæ has raised something that you see as acceptable but where you can easily accommodate a request to avoid repeating that comment / behaviour / action? Is there an opportunity to learn about a perspective that you may lack familiarity with / experience of and in so doing become able to reconsider whether your perspective might be worth adjusting? Is this a situation where Fæ is being overly sensitive or even unreasonable in your view, and if so, could a respectful discussion and exchange of views help to reduce tension? Just because you don't intend to give offense doesn't mean that someone else doesn't perceive offense, and as with many situations with differing perspectives, the issue is not so much "am I right or wrong?" as "can we find a way forward that is mutually satisfactory?" I make no comment on any specific interaction that you have had with Fæ or your actions, my comments are general and offered as thoughts for you to consider.

I will not continue this discussion here as it is off topic for this noticeboard. EdChem (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EdChem, I know you didn't comment on me. I wanted ya to know that editors aren't trolling Fæ or usually being hostile to Fæ at these pages. Your point is taken about going to your talk page about that. A lot of editors have stopped and thought about what offense they may have caused Fæ. Fæ seeing offense, which happens a lot, doesn't mean any offense was there. I suggest you look at threads like this one.[22] What offense were editors causing Fæ? Compare Fæ's behavior to theirs. Keep reading past that thread. If you don't wanna, okay, but my view is that Fæ has been overly sensitive and hostile. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It much more than my fault at taking "offense" with your edits. You recently blanked your talk page where this was spelt out very clearly diff. You are deliberately targeting me with harassing, false and bullying abuse in order to disrupt discussion about transgender topics. You know exactly what you are doing, and you appear here just to troll others and testing the line of how far you can push it. Here are some examples:

Fæ likes to pretend that evil lesbians are pulling these experiences/disgusting accounts out of their asses. diff

You agreeing with the anon wanting Pyxis Solitary "forbidden from editing this page" because of their exclusive sexual attraction to non-trans women or even for saying "trans ideology" is despicable. It's also homophobic as fuck. diff

Ah, but I mustn't forget. Some of y'all call any lesbian a TERF. I guess Pyxis Solitary isn't permitted to call herself a homosexual female and say she's not into trans women. diff

However, the good news for you is that administrators are uninterested in enforcing the discretionary sanctions that apply to transgender issues, contributors just have to grow a skin like a rhinoceros and put up with this sort of childish offensive trolling like it was a "joke", when it's like having a boot stamping on your face. --Fæ (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

As a practical matter, would the multiple and reliably sourced evidence that Murphy is mainly famous for being banned from Twitter, having her legal challenge against the ban fail, and being no-platformed by notable organizations for her actual-proven-in-court hate speech against trans women, be sufficient evidence of "transphobic hatred"? Checking as having your hatred officially recognized in court, seems like the most extreme type of evidence one could expect. --Fæ (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Checking as having your hatred officially recognized in court, seems like the most extreme type of evidence one could expect." Wishful thinking. Try reading Meghan Murphy v. Twitter Inc.. Excerpt:

The parties' dispute centers on whether Murphy seeks to impose liability on Twitter in its capacity as publisher...Murphy's reliance on Demetriades v. Yelp, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.Al P.4th 294 is misplaced...Murphy's complaint is not seeking to hold Twitter liable for its purely commercial statements to users or potential 'advertisers.' Rather, all of her claims challenge Twitter's interpretation and application of its Terms of Service and Hateful Conduct Policy to require Murphy to remove certain content she had posted in her Twitter account, to suspend that account, and ultimately to ban her from posting from Twitter due to her repeated violations of the Terms of Service and Policy. All of those actions reflect paradigmatic editorial decisions not to publish particular content, and therefore are barred by Section 230...For the foregoing reasons, Twitter's special motion to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 is denied, and its demurrer to the complaint is sustained without leave to amend."

The suit was dismissed under Section 230. That's it. There is no official recognition of "hatred". And Twitter's motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (the SLAPP statute) was denied. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Murphy attempted to sue Twitter, and she got nowhere, super. The point being that she had zero grounds to go to court on the basis of the content of her tweets (the locus of the case), because her lawyers could not challenge Twitter's perfectly correct assessment of her words being hate speech, precisely the hate speech against trans women that Twitter's policies prohibit on the basis of being hate speech against "members of a protected category". The point here is that the evidence was presented in court and the court found no basis to challenge Twitter's actions. What your remarks underline is how even Murphy has not challenged the definition of her publication of misgendering tweets as being "hate speech". So, Twitter calls it "hate speech", Murphy does not legally disagree that she wrote "hate speech", and the courts have no issue with the process that Twitter followed for removing hate speech from their website, and certainly the courts have not ordered Twitter to restore Murphy's hateful comments, which I guess was what Murphy was hoping for.

Looking at the court record, you appear to have cherry-picked a rather abstract point. The court did examine the Tweets in question in order to assess the nature of public interest, so the Tweets are part of the legal record. Without repeating the main parts of the hate speech (let's avoid that please) direct quotes from the court record which "officially" puts the on record that Murphy's words are hate speech:

Twitter claimed that Murphy had violated its Hateful Conduct Policy by posting Tweets that expressed views critical of transgender people and of what Murphy describes as the "notion of transgenderism." ... "It then banned her permanently after she asserted that a transgender woman in Canada formerly named ..."

In the summary the court recognized her repeated violations of the Terms of Service and Policy as a matter of fact.

Still does not read like "wishful thinking" that this is all evidence that Murphy expresses "hatred" for trans women. Unless you have some other actual evidence? --Fæ (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attribute as per reasons I've given before. Rhino (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking sockpuppet comment. — Bilorv (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attribute and even then it should be used carefully and this is clearly a contentious and relatively recent LABEL. It appears that we have a case were some of the article subjects/people who are being called "TERF" are objecting. It would be better for our readers if instead of pushing to include a contentious label we were to say "this person doesn't consider trans women to be part of X because Y... this view is controverisal because of Z". As the term is seen as prjorative Wikipedia should never use, in wiki-voice, phrases like "TERFs objecto to the X..." As I side note, in looking through the various related discussions, I've been distrubed by the behavior of several of the involved editors. There is clear advocacy superceeding NPOV as well as impartial tone. There is also a lot of battleground behavior by editors who should know better. Springee (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that simple. From reading the comments by editors who wish to apply widely the term 'TERF', and the published works of some of those to whom they wish to apply it, I have concluded that these editors are happy to label as TERF anyone who asks questions about men who are part-way through transitioning to transgender women having access to some 'women only' places. It is not an exclusion of all transgender people from all places set aside for women. The label conceals the detail of what is said by its intended subjects. I accept that my conclusion may be wrong, but if it is right, the term 'TERF' is too broad a brush for Wikipedia to use, except with the greatest of care and in limited and fully justified circumstances. So, I disagree with User:Springee's summary of the situation, but not the recommended course of action.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as one of the editors looking to apply the term TERF somewhat broadly, ThoughtIdRetired, that is not at all my intention. I only support the application of the term where both of the following apply:

1) Reliable sources characterize the subject as both "trans-exclusionary" and "radical feminist" AND

2) The term "trans-exclusionary" has been correctly applied, through a real intent to exclude people of female gender identity from at least some places (or organizations) set aside for women. People who question how to judge the reality or sincerity of a gender identity declaration, or people who distinguish between Cis- and Trans women as potential relationship partners are not necessarily "trans-exclusionary" in the sense I mean. Most of those RS label as TERF or who describe themselves as "gender critical" insist on using pronouns for others based on sex assignment at birth, which almost certainly makes them "trans-exclusionary" in the real sense.

Springee, I may have been one of the "involved" editors you were referring to, so I hope this has at least clarified (if not mollified) your concern. Newimpartial (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attribute, because RS on usage of the term even in formal academic discourse show that it is highly politicized, a form of dog-whistling: some subset of writers use it as a simple descriptive term, while others use it in a dubious, argument to emotion manner, a form of intimidation and public shame-labelling. It therefore is not suitable for use in Wikipedia's own editorial voice. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c [SMcCandlish via public WiFi] 16:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Attribute per WP:LABEL. I think TERF should be treated as a contentious label, analogous to 'homophobe', 'racist', 'climate change denialist', etc. I think the clearest argument for it being a contentious label is simply the fact that the vast majority of people to whom the label is applied reject it. I can't think of any labels with that property that would be appropriate to apply in Wikipedia's voice. (Disclosure: I was summoned here via an e-mail from Halo Jerk1, presumably because of my previous participation in discussions on this topic at Talk:Julie Bindel and Talk:Mermaids (charity)). Colin M (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____

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

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

Survey

Yes. Attribute. Refer to my comment here, folks. Using in-text attribution is in accordance with WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:WIKIVOICE. To quote Masem, "A label should only really be considered factual in wikivoice if we have years of scholarly review of that person to make it an accepted academic fact that has withstood the test of time (eg Duke)."[28] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Attribute. per Halo Jerk1, per the nine other editors above who specifically favored attribution (not counting the sock), and per WP:LABEL's statement "Value-laden labels...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." TERF in present usage is indeed derogatory, just like transphobe, one of the words specifically mentioned by WP:LABEL, and so it should not be used in Wikipedia's voice. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Attribute. We shouldn't be using Wikipedia's voice unless there's broad consensus among high-quality, secondary, non-opinion/non-news sources of lasting impact that the label applies to the person. I would honestly say we shouldn't even be labeling in the voice of others unless there's widespread agreement on the term outside the recentist/immediateist press. I really don't see the value in this specific label anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also I am opposed to procedurally closing this. I wasn't canvassed. I, like many if not most of the people here, just happened to notice the RfC through my watchlist. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Attribute. I don't really know (being neither a feminist, LBGTQ, woman or even gender dysphoric) whether "TERF" is an epithet or a more dispassionate term. But some radical feminists object to begin called "TERFs". We could see the trendier WP:RS start using the term any day now. But the very fact the term "TERF" is at the center of controversy means we should be conservative and attribute in the text of a BLP when applied to anyone - at least until that controversy abates. loupgarous (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Attribute. It's a BLP and must abide by strict and meticulous standards. Pyxis Solitary yak 09:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin request: Procedural close This RFC and the BLP/N, both created by Halo Jerk1, has been subject to canvassing by Halo Jerk1 both by the misuse of targeted pings (see multiple above complaints by those that were pinged), and by what appears a covert off-wiki direct email campaign diff diff by the creator of this RFC. Given the context this is a direct breach of Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Gaming the system on a subject where the GamerGate Arbcom discretionary sanctions apply. The much quoted (by Halo Jerk1) example BLP of Meghan Murphy, was subject to significant sockpuppet manipulation of both the article and the discussion of changes to it. The above BLP/N was also manipulated by the same sock puppet account, with the views of the sockpuppet being posted as evidence by Halo Jerk1, as well as the sock puppet account making direct posts. Given that it is impossible to assess how much both the canvassing and the sockpuppetry are affecting the perceived evidence for those giving their good faith opinions, or to what extent the canvassing of selected viewpoints may distort bias, this RFC should be closed as an unreliable consensus process. This does not stop the potential to proceed with other processes, or another RFC, or indeed to reach a consensus through discussion. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC ain't the above discussion. There was one complaint about me pinging so many editors from a similar subject (#RfC: Category:Climate change deniers). I asked if it was okay, and I later got a reply that it wasn't. That discussion continued as usual. Also, folks, including you, have specifically rejected pinging as canvassing.[29]. I'm here now because I got an email to comment here explaining my email to Colin M, and I have a little time to respond. I didn't email Colin M to vote in this RfC. I emailed Colin M about the discussion higher up because he hadn't been on Wikipedia since August 1st, and I didn't know when he'd be back on. I didn't ask him to comment in favor of my viewpoint. I realize now that I should have left the message on his talk page for transparency. The email to Colin M, which wasn't about this RfC, shouldn't be used to silence this RfC. I didn't make all those folks higher up say that we should attribute. All the folks higher up and in this RfC saying we should attribute ain't "an unreliable consensus." If anyone really wants to shut down this RfC because of my email to Colin M, which wasn't about this RfC, how is this gonna stop another RfC on this topic, or the folks who participated in the discussion higher up from being pinged to it? We'd still have a lot of the same folks participating. Let the folks speak, just like they spoke higher up. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you state clearly that Colin M has been the only person you have emailed about this Noticeboard discussion or related votes? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It depends If we have 10 or so reliable sources all saying, "Linehan is a TERF" it becomes something of a WP:BLUESKY issue. In that case we could say that he's "broadly characterized as a TERF" [ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref] rather than listing attributions. For more marginal and disputed cases though, we should attribute such statements with respect to WP:BLP requirements and WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Admin request: if you are going to close this, please relocate to "Should Wikipedia state someone is a TERF or is transphobic in its voice, or should such a statement be given attribution?" the responses from editors that did not respond in that section to the similar-nature request for comments. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overly broad We've had a number of discussions about "derogatory" labels(example) and editors have consistently rejected any sort of broad prohibition on terminology. If a term is consistently used by high quality reliable sources to describe something, then we should follow suit. If it isn't, then we can leave it out. If we want to talk about specific cases, we can have an RFC about specific cases. Nblund^talk 14:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, attribute. RS clearly demonstrate dual usages, one descriptive, one politicized/loaded. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c [SMcCandlish via public WiFi] 16:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It depends + overly broad. Generally, TREF is probably too newfangled and jargony. However, if 80%+ of RS covering the subject (including, say, BBC, NYT, WaPo, etc.) state in their lead sentence: "TERF Jane Doe spoke of her twitter experience...." - then sure - we should TERF away as we would with any other label when a preponderance of sources use it. I think this is a bit hypothetical (I don't see BBC TERFing people yet - but...). If we have a significant amount of reputable sources using TERF - we should attribute. And if its UNDUE (particularly for such a value laden label) - we exclude. To sum up - We should TERF someone on the same grounds we'd label someone a "radical Islamist", "white supremacist", "far-left", "far-right", etc. etc. Icewhiz (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Depends but generally attribute unless mainstream. If this were a mainstream term being used in "BBC, NYC, WaPo, etc." as Icewhiz says it might be a different story, but as long as it is being sourced to what could be seen as essentially trans ~~activists~~ advocates, letting them dictate factually labeling someone in Wikipedia's voice as hating trans people (according to how TERF is currently worded anyway) is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. "Is widely characterized as a TERF" without explicitly attributing to anyone in particular may also be reasonable in some cases. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"essentially trans activists", I think means "trans activists". Of the key writers quoted in the TERF article, Guardian journalist Viv Smythe is probably the most important source. She describes herself as part of "feminist cis women", not radical, not trans, and clearly not trans activist. Lumping all writers who might use the words "trans-exclusive radical feminist" in their books or articles as "essentially trans activists" and "putting the fox in charge of the henhouse" is not a characterization I recognize, nor a helpful one if the issue is improving the diversity of sources supporting the TERF article. --Fæ (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Smythe is not a Guardian journalist: although she "works for the digital community team at Guardian Australia", she has only written one piece for the Guardian [30], an op-ed about her coining the term. In it, she says[31]
I do find the renewed interest over the last few years in writing of mine from a decade ago disconcerting. The Terf acronym has long since left that particular discussion (and me) behind, and been weaponised at times by both those who advocate trans-inclusion in feminist/female spaces, and those who push for trans-exclusion from female-only spaces. I have no control over how others use a word (as it has now become) that came about simply to save typing a longer phrase out over and over again - a shorthand to describe one cohort of feminists who self-identify as radical and are unwilling to recognise trans women as sisters, unlike those of us who do.
Cheers, gnu 57 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attribute per what I already wrote above. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Attribute I don't really know whether "TERF" is an epithet or a more dispassionate term. The very fact the term "TERF" is at the center of controversy and that some people object to begin called "TERFs" means we should be conservative and attribute in the text of a BLP. We shouldn't use it at all in lede paragraphs of BLPs. Also, I'd like to mention that I was innocently reading this page, and voted without being canvassed, recruited in any manner or a sockpuppet. I'll gladly see anyone who says differently in WP:ANI where they can either present evidence of this accusation or retract the charge. loupgarous (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. If the person or organization specifically states that they exclude trans-women (in some way) as women, then the description or categorization is applicable. If multiple reliable-sources state as much, with adequate evidence and unbiased reporting, then the description or categorization would appear to be applicable if cited and well-sourced in the article itself as a WP:DEFINING characteristic. The description or categorization should not be lightly applied and any disagreement should err on not using the description or categorization absent WP:CONSENSUS. Absent obviousness, just report any obviously relevant information, reliably sourced and worded without WP:UNDUE weight, without using any labels or categorization. Softlavender (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Attribute as a general rule, but I do agree with Softlavender immediately above - there may be instances where we don't need to, like where the person self-identifies (which should probably be attributed anyways.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Attribute: Absent the broad consensus noted by Mendaliv, and self-identification (though that should also be attributed), attribution remains the best practice for value-laden terms and phrases. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on sources I think Wikipedia should follow the reliable sources with its labels of living persons. Attribution, whether to a specific source or to a type of source generally, should be used unless a label is widespread in reliable sources. The term "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" seems to be used less in the sources and more simply as a synonym for "transphobic". I agree with Softlavender's comment that a term needs to be a defining characteristic used in numerous reliable sources or relatively accepted by the individual being called it. Almost all terms that are "-exclusionary" or "-phobic" or "anti-" are labels that need to be carefully used based on the language used in reliable sources rather than interpretations of the language used in the sources. Existing Wikipedia policies seem to already cover this discussion, unless there is serious doubt as to whether "trans-exclusionary" is a type of transphobia. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Attribute - As per, well, 90% of the people in this discussion. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Attribute all possible dysphemisms Not just this one, but all where the person does not self-attribute a label. I note the historical existence of Womyn-born womyn as a term for a subset hereof, where that label is self-applied. The existence of auch groups is not really in doubt. Collect (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone actually identify as a TERF? If not we shouldn't label someone as a TERF, we should instead say that x or y has described them as a TERF. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with you, based on the nature of the term, effectively a political slur. However we seem happy to use other terms that are generally considered political slurs, such as "far right" and "far left" based on third party opinion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Decide based on sources. If only one high-quality reliable source calls them a TERF, we should probably inline-cite that one; but if multiple high-quality, reliable non-opinion sources use the term for them in the article voice as if it's a neutral descriptor, inline-citing them all gets clunky (while inline-citing only some of them downplays what is clearly a major descriptor for their views), and also serves to downplay or express doubt for something is clearly relatively uncontroversial. --Aquillion (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Attribute unless the subject self-identifies as such. I happened to see this and was not canvassed but, yes, attribution seems best in line with our policies and to offer the most informative presentation to our readers. Haukur (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use the term unless the subject self-identifies that way. It's a contrived bit of jargon intended to denigrate, suggest the target of the characterization holds illegitimate ideas. Instead, if relevant to the article, the subject's views should be carefully described and properly attributed, as should appropriate example(s) of criticism of those views. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use the term for now The primary purpose of this term in common usage is to attack and belittle somebody. Wikipedia shouldn't be giving a platform to this type of language. Does any other respectable encyclopedia decribe its subjects as TERFs? Does mainstream academia use this language to categorise this type of activist? If it becomes a legitimate component of scholarly lexicon I would withdraw my opposition on those grounds. If it become impossible to give sufficient coverage to a subject without utilising the term then it should certainly by attributed. Betty Logan (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Begging the question of whether we should use "TERF" at all. Using it without attribution is certainly not a good idea, but it should not be used to categorize at all, and should only ever be used in quote, reported speech or something very close thereto.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Comment firstly, just to point out that at present, the TERF description in the Meghan Murphy article is wholly unreffed and therefore fails WP:V. Acres of text are being expended above, while something a rookie editor would be expected to know is being ignored. Secondly the text is in the opening sentence of the lead, but not expanded in the body (where it would give some oppurtunity for the reader perhaps to learn what this neologism means, who has so accused Murphy, when they did so and what she has written to deserve it). And Yes. Attribute. or fix the linked article, such that it is an informative, neutral description of what these women believe and why - not the poorly sourced, thinly disguised, attack page it currently is. Pincrete (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, stick with existing guidelines; saying that we should always attribute would mean we have a higher standard for applying the term "TERF" than we do for applying the term "neo-Nazi", which IMO makes no sense. As others have pointed out, we call Richard Spencer a neo-Nazi quite clearly, without in-text attribution, and despite his own denial of the term. However, we do this only because the sourcing for it is overwhelming. I think this standard for applying controversial terms is good and makes sense. Applying a stricter standard for only certain terms would not only get into WP:BLUESKY issues, it would be a wiki-wide violation of WP:NPOV. LokiTheLiar (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI: an RfC to replace the Meghan Murphy biography as a "non controversial stub" has been requested: RfC to rebuild the Meghan Murphy biography. Pyxis Solitary yak 01:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh! This "discussion" has become such a trainwreck that I can't even see the best place to add my comment among the mangled wreckage so I'll just put it here at the bottom and add to the verbiage.
There is nothing special about these terms. The usual rules for BLPs, and articles in general, should apply. All article content needs to be validly referenced. We should take care not to refer to anybody as a transphobe or a TERF without valid referencing but we should not be afraid to refer to them as such when the references support it! Sure, they won't like it, but then the white supremacists don't like being referred to as "white supremacists" and will offer a range of euphemistic alternative terms they would prefer. So long as the references support what we say, this is simply not a consideration for us.
There are several analogous situations to guide us: We should treat "transphobe"/"transphobic" the same way we treat "homophobe"/"homophobic" and "Islamophobe"/"Islamophobic". "TERF" is a little more problematic. One insight I would like to offer (and I apologise if this is already buried somewhere in the TL;DR above) is that "TERF" is a term with its meaning in limbo. Sometimes it literally means what the acronym implies (i.e. a radical feminist who is transphobic) and other times it is simply used as a synonym for "transphobe" without really meaning to suggest that the subject is any sort of feminist. This has come about partially due to natural evolution of language but mostly because a lot of transphobes use insincere feminist sounding rhetoric to confuse the issue and mask the real basis for their transphobia. For this reason I suggest that we should prefer the terms "transphobe"/"transphobic" where that is all we mean to say and only use "trans exclusionary radical feminist" (set out in full) where we have references to show that the subject's transphobia coincides with a general radical feminist standpoint, not purely on trans issues, i.e that we need to show references for both "trans exclusionary" and "radical feminist" separately.
We should also take care not to conflate "TERF" with "radical feminist" in general. That would be inaccurate and unfair on the radical feminists who are not TERFs. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Begging the question of whether we should use "TERF" at all. Using it without attribution is certainly not a good idea, but it should not be used to categorize at all, and should only ever be used in quote, reported speech or something very close thereto.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Adam Edelman

Hi,

I have taken a look at the article, and the 'Disqualification' section is clearly biased - the only sources are his own words, and it does not meet the guidelines for the living peoples biography. Please see this link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Edelman and I'm sure it will be obvious. Some of this content should be entirely removed or flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.201.73.18 (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the unsourced material, and trimmed the puffery and non-NPOV content from the article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BOP registration numbers

I noticed someone posted the Federal Bureau Of Prisons registration numbers of a bunch of severely mentally handicapped people over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_Muslim I think it might be a good idea to remove em. Nick Humley (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where on the page does it say that they are "severely mentally handicapped"?--Auric talk 18:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the BOP numbers and rewrote the lede a bit. That said, Nick Humley's description of them is in extremely poor taste, at best. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Convert from Orthodox Judaism to Muslim extremism, and eventually get shut down and imprisoned for inciting violence against synagogues, British MPs and two guys who make fart jokes for a living? Not exactly a model of sound judgement and wise decision making. But yes, adding the BOP numbers is silly and meaningless. GMG ^talk 18:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checking on BLP applicability

This company faced a lawsuit from a transgendered individual which was reported in RS for the video gaming industry. (Surprisingly?) the name of the individual was not named by any of these RSes, though the name is discoverable through court documents. We have taken steps to trip the full name out since court documents are not acceptable for this type of naming (particularly with trans individuals), but a fair question now is related to BLP. This person lost their case, so it had no significant effect on the company. The case is hard to discover outside the period it happened, there wasn't a mass rush of "Valve is anti-LGBTQ!" complaints or the like. So I am wondering if it is just better not to mention it at all in the interests of BLP. This is not to whitewash the legal claim away from Valve, but companies get sued all the time and we don't report every lawsuit, unless it becomes newsworthy, and I think this is just cause to remove.

On that same matter, should revdel be used to remove the edits with that name on both mainspace and talkpage? --Masem (t) 00:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section about the law suit. It simply didn't have enough impact on the company as a whole to be mentioned.

I believe that the person you are talking about is otherwise non notable.

I'd be surprised if people objected to deleting revisions that contain the name (or other personal information) of non notable individuals. If it is not the preferred name (e.g. a pre-transition name) then it should definitely be removed. Nick Humley (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section has been removed, I think that's a good decision. I don't think revdel is needed. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support the removal of the section, for WP:BALASP reasons, given the limited, and unsustained, coverage. I don't, however, see that the material meets any of the criteria at WP:CRD; and do not support revdel. - Ryk72 ^talk 16:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the section removed there is no need in it. And also, I doubt that the revdel is necessary.IuliusRRR (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobin on Andy Ngo

In Andy Ngo#Confrontations with antifascist activists, this article[38] from Jacobin Magazine is used as a source for this material: In addition, according to Jacobin, friends of two activists said that they had to go into hiding after Ngo revealed their names because they became subjects of harrassment. Connor Smith, a Portland DSA member, has accused Ngo of recording and publishing a sign-in sheet with names of members of the organisation during one of their events, and claimed that as a result he received threatening messages. Jacobin does have an editorial board listed on their website ([39]), and the author of this article, Arun Gupta, appears to be a professional journalist who has written for other publications ([40], [41], [42], [43]). However, I've seen very little to convince me that Jacobin has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and this article in particular is written with an obvious agenda. It begins by criticizing the mainstream media's coverage of Ngo, and the first claim in the article is supported only by this: Friends of two other activists claim they went into hiding after Ngo spread their names and they became targets of harassment. (for the second, the author appears to have actually spoken to Connor Smith, so that at least is a more direct claim). I'd like to see other editors' opinions on this. Is this Jacobin article reliable for these claims? And if it is, does including second-hand accusations from "friends of two activists" violate BLP? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that Jacobin is the type of partisan source that we should not be relying on as a sole source for claims about a living person. Unless there's any other sources reporting this material, it might not be duly-weighted anyway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Without any corroboration of the claims from a more "mainstream" source, this feels UNDUE, and the type of material BLP would caution against including for lack of sourcing. --Masem (t) 04:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobin is not less partisan than many of the sources used in the article already. Moreover I struggle to understand how it's not "mainstream"? BeŻet (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I also think that their statement is ambiguous. Are they saying that the two friends were harrassed? Or are they saying that the friends said that the activists were harrassed? Hard to tell from what they wrote. So in addition to being from non-RS, it's not even clear what they are saying. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Get an additional source or drop it. O3000 (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this assessment. This source is quite valuable as while most sources focus on Ngo getting punched, sources like this explain the backstory and the reason why he got punched. Moreover, it is a respected magazine, and rejecting it as "not mainstream" or "partisan" is quite dishonest. If we want to achieve a balanced view of Ngo, adding context is quite crucial. BeŻet (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd like to add that "However, I've seen very little to convince me that Jacobin has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is extremely dishonest. BeŻet (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the context is definitely due and should be included, but that this is a really specific accusation to hang on a single source (even though I believe Jacobin to be generally reliable). I would prefer to find a second source rather than just removing the allegations, however. If we can get some other source that talked to these people I would think it would be enough. Loki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Null

Gary Null (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have received a threat from an attorney concerning this page. Best I can figure, this dif removed the offending content. Please see the talk page. If someone could look at the competing versions and compare them to the actual sources, I'd be much obliged.-- Dloh cier ekim 21:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are fine for the claims the article makes. Since they describe it as alt-med crackpottery, so should Wikipedia. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so convinced. This relies heavily on Quackwatch, and that in turn is self published and partisan. The claims about his credientials all come from Quackwatch, and I'd be wary about relying on that site for claims of this nature. Aidstruth.org also seems questionable as a source. - Bilby (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PARITY, Quackwatch is an excellent source to combat the clickbait claims in just the lead of the article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aidstruth.org also seems a fine source. Since 2015 it's no longer actively maintained ("Our work is done"), but their list of contributors[44] is respectable, verging on impressive. Compare our articles on Bette Korber, Nicoli Nattrass, Gregg Gonsalves, Martin Delaney, and John P. Moore. Bishonen | talk 03:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Parity doen't apply to claims in a BLP. I'm very doubtful about using Quackwatch for claims about the validity of a living person's qualifications, per WP:BLPSPS. I'm perfectly ok with using it for questioning pseudoscientific medical claims. - Bilby (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

discussion seems to be cnetered on Talk:Gary Null. It might be best to centralize discussion there.-- Deep fried okra 05:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eliot Cowan

Hello,

This article about Eliot Cowan looks like self promotion, some of the links are broken, most of the references point to self promotion, there's no proof or critics of Cowan's pseudo-scientific approach.

I wonder how this can of sentence ended up here "A series of dreams, encounters and experiences guided him to apprentice with Don Guadalupe Gonzalez Rios, an eminent Huichol shaman" - this is not encyclopedic knowledge.

Best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdrk (talk • contribs) 11:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it's self promotion. For that, there are usually tell-tale signs in the writing style (ie: spatial, temporal, and narrative perspectives don't match, and details are given that only the subject could possibly know; you're reading third-person pronouns but it still feels like first person). The writing style there does seem oddly familiar, though.

The entire article is based upon one source, that and a broken link that, from the title, appears to be a list of bibliographical data which in itself does not confer notability. I'm not sure about the reliability of the one source; a yoga magazine. I don't know their reputation for fact checking and what not. The article looks well written and very professional, but lacks that sort of neutrality that one would expect from a good RS. Likewise, our article lacks the same neutrality, as if not written by the subject but by someone close to the subject. All in all, I'm not sure that it is enough to demonstrate notability either. This may be a good candidate for WP:Articles for deletion.

Keep in mind, I have great respect for ancient cultures and their traditional practices. Many of our modern medicines such as aspirin are simple plant derivatives that people like the Vikings knew about a thousand years ago or more. I'm a great proponent of knowing your local wildlife, so I'm not basing this review on any bias toward modern medicine. (Plants contain a vast variety of chemicals both beneficial and toxic, some are edible and abundant enough to feed the world, while others are extremely poisonous, enough so that a tiny bit of its sap is enough to kill a whale. It's healthy to be aware of your surroundings.) Zaereth (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Efficacy of plant-derived medicines aside - is there anything to indicate this person is a notable herbalist? Or shaman? Or author? Or camp-runner? Article is almost certainly a candidate for AfD, and definitely a candidate for copyediting. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that he wrote one book, published by a company I've never heard of, with no other traces of even reviews, I'd say no. A quick google search seemed to confirm this. Zaereth (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've PRODded the article. Bishonen | talk 20:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Charles Finch Change Reverted

Charles' page is receiving repeat edits of poorly sourced quotes and potentially libellous.

We don’t have a family record of the editor who is claiming to be a grandchild. Charles resigned from DDL as his term of Chairmanship was up and it was prior to any store closures. His role was solely marketing and not involved with day to day US business at all any inference is slanderous and libellous and we have forwarded this to our lawyers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophierizan (talk • contribs)

Hello. Don't know about the grandchild but not by relation bit. Seems very trivial even if true. Both slanderous and libelous? I think not, but I'm sure your lawyers will inform you of what these words actually mean. You might want to read WP:NOLEGALTHREATS and retract your statements or you're likely to be blocked, which would prevent you in helping with any further discussion. You might want to read WP:Conflict of interest, since you apparently qualify for that rule, due to your own inference of personal knowledge of the subject.

That said, the NY Times source in question doesn't even mention his name let alone back up the assertion that he was involved in the company's demise. In this case, I would say removing the statement is the correct thing to do. Zaereth (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I posted to Sophierizan's talk page as well, but this certainly looks like UPE, and if so, the user needs to disclose it. That said, I think the BLPN concerns expressed here are very valid, and the revert was entirely correct. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i've disclosed on my own page that I am a paid contributor.

Taylor Swift

I would be grateful for any input at Talk:Taylor Swift#Image in the infobox and on the main page: photoshopped?. Cheers, gnu 57 04:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Denly

this diff is a potentially libellous BLP violation (since reverted, but needs deletion?) Spike 'em (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've revision deleted it, along with the next edit summary in the history. Bishonen | talk 21:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Selman Akbulut

I came across the Selman Akbulut article today. The article was fully protected 2 days ago, after an ongoing edit warring and a BLP dispute regarding the Selman Akbulut#Controversy section in the article. I left some comments today at the article talk page. It would be desirable if some other previously uninvolved editors take a look and provide some feedback there. There seem to be WP:COI issues involved, and the 'Controversy' section is currently sourced just to two primary sources, the university official documents concerning the ongoing disciplinary case regarding the subject. I did a bit of google searching and could not find any news coverage of the case, although maybe I missed something. I am currently of the mind that it would be better to remove the entire 'Controversy' section from the article for now, until and unless more solid independent secondary WP:RS sources become available. In any case, some extra eyes on the article and its talk page would be useful. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J. Brent Bill

Some one anonymously posted defamatory information on the page about me and my family. Here is the history: curprev 05:01, 20 August 2019‎ 50.254.87.33 talk‎ 2,849 bytes +290‎ Truth of tendency undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 04:51, 20 August 2019‎ 50.254.87.33 talk‎ 2,559 bytes +161‎ Added real truth undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 04:11, 20 August 2019‎ OliverEastwood talk contribs‎ m 2,398 bytes -415‎ Reverted 1 edit by 50.254.87.33 (talk) to last revision by Rosiestep (TW) undothank Tag: Undo curprev 04:09, 20 August 2019‎ 50.254.87.33 talk‎ 2,813 bytes +415‎ I’m his grandson I’ve scene it first hand. undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit

I have revised and updated my information

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brent Bill (talk • contribs) 13:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the content that was added that was removed I assume by you [45] was completely unacceptable and I'm sorry you had to see that. That said, perhaps you've already recognised this but in case you haven't do note that User:OliverEastwood is not the one who added this info or claimed to be your grandson. They simply removed the info the first time it was added by an IP 50.254.87.33 who made that claim in the edit summary. OliverEastwood has not claimed any connection to you that I see. Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm fairly sure there's also no 'hackers' involved. For many of our articles editors do not need an account to edit. Adding what they did is wrong, but not hacking. Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article J. Brent Bill has no independent sources. I've no idea whether any exist for potential use; but in anything like its current state, the article is ripe to be nominated for deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Ohr

This wikipedia page is clearly politically biased. Proof has been uncovered directly contraindicating what the author has written about his involvement with his sources and how he abused them in the Trump investigation. He has left a paper trail and his 302's prove this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8BF0:5AA0:4D97:3BE3:AC2D:7CFA (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what author you are referring to. If the author of the article, note that most wikipedia articles have many authors rather than a single one. Anyway if you have reliable secondary sources which cover what you are claiming, I suggest you bring them to the talk page and discuss what material you want to include. If you lack reliable secondary sources then there's nothing to discuss. 'paper trail' and 'his 302' are irrelevant to us without coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there's already a discussion Talk:Bruce Ohr#Bruce Ohr 302 release 8/8/2019 render conclusions herein incorrect & need correcting. Unfortunately like you, whoever started the discussion failed to provide any reliable secondary sources or even concrete proposals for change. Nil Einne (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Carter

Suggest for deletion as it is not a notable person. The article was written by the person themself. This article would be better on their own website or on their Google page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0C:5BC0:40:15D3:6145:3EF3:958E:A3D8 (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Thomas

Erica Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an American politician - (black and a Democrat) who was involved in an embarrassing incident in a supermarket: Erica Thomas#Incident at Publix which takes up about half the body of the article. User:TheTruthiness. On the 12th an IP added unsourced defamatory content[46] which was reverted today by User:Horse Eye Jack and reinstated with a change of wording and a source by TheTruthiness]].[47] This seems totally inappropriate, as does The Truthiness's insistence that unnecessary material about her be added to The Babylon Bee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Horse Eye Jack reverted it with the edit summary |Does not accurately summarize the information in the source", TheTruthiness reinstated it, I reverted and TheTruthiness reinstated it again. I really would like more eyes on this. I see that Thomas's article has been a target for IPs this month. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally undue coverage of this event. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty WP:NOTNEWS. GMG ^talk 18:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RECENTISM much? IF this was a more national public figure, there might be a reason to include this, but at this point there's no clear impact on her career. Should not even be covered. --Masem (t) 18:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed it down: [48]. Also started a section on the article's talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've topic banned User:TheTruthiness from pages related to Erica Thomas. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Tucker Carlson

There is a RfC about an addition to the lead section. See talk page. --Malerooster (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Masood yet again

Previously I raised concerns on this noticeboard that the editor Störm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had created Category:Pakistani propagandists, including Shahid Masood and some other people from Pakistan. Commenters on this noticeboard said that The name of the category seems very POV and inappropriate to WP:BLP, and I've emptied the category which could be nominated for deletion, and Creating categories should be an advanced user-right. The category was emptied and then deleted.

Störm has been constantly active on this particular BLP, including on 20 July changing the start of the lede to start the article by saying that Masood is a "conspiracy theorist, columnist, anchorperson, and a political analyst" instead of "journalist, columnist, and a political analyst". After some weeks of edit-warring over this, Störm has now reduced it to "conspiracy theorist[2], columnist and political analyst".

The source used to support this claim being right at the start of the article is currently this one from the Daily Times, entitled So what are deep web, dark web and all sorts of webs you heard from Shahid Masood?. Although this is written by the "Digital Editor, Daily Times", it seems to be very much a light-hearted opinion piece, with text like "But did you know you and I both use the deep web every day? You heard me right".

The source previously used to support this claim being right at the start of the article was this one, which does have a sub-heading "Conspiracy theory" but specifically does not call Masood a conspiracy theorist. (Dawn (newspaper) is generally considered a reliable source for matters related to Pakistan.)

Störm has also helpfully added Category:9/11 conspiracy theorists to the article. Masood might indeed be a conspiracy theorist -- in fact reliable sources suggest he believes all manner of unlikely things -- but I'm not sure that this is his defining characteristic. (The Dawn source does not mention 9/11 at all.)

Störm has also followed this up on my talkpage by suggesting that because I am originally from Bangladesh, I should not edit topics regarding Pakistan.

I would greatly appreciate feedback on, firstly, whether it is appropriate to begin the article with "conspiracy theorist" instead of "journalist" for someone who has 15+ years experience as a journalist and news anchor (including a former subsidary of CNBC and as "Chairman of Pakistan Television Corporation"), and secondly, whether Category:9/11 conspiracy theorists is appropriate given the sourcing provided.

Pinging everyone who has commented on this issue previously: @El C:@HouseOfChange:@Jonathunder:@Only in death:@Störm:

Many thanks for your input. MPS1992 (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not familiar enough with the subject to know whether calling him a conspiracy theorist violates due weight. That objection needs to be presented in a manner that's substantive, at any case. Also, I have cautioned Störm about the inappropriate (and frankly, bizarre) comment about MPS1992 being from Bangladesh, so I consider that matter settled. El_C 00:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with him either, but I'll give my two cents. We should not be putting anything in the lede that is not discussed in much greater detail within the body of the article. The lede should be a mere summary of the body, and anything in the body that is not substantial enough to write a brief summary about doesn't belong in the lede.

The source in question may very well be a reliable news outlet, I don't know without examining them further, but this particular article is an op/ed piece; no different than a NY Times op/ed or an advice column. You can tell by the tone and the non-neutral ((leading) words such as "claimed", "buzzwords", "disgraced", etc... Also by the opinions the writer uses like "he really pushed it", "baseless and dramatic claims", "extremely offensive", etc... Beyond that, it's mostly just a reporter giving his personal definitions of some computer jargon (fairly common words by English standards as I understand it), or an advice column no different from Ann Landers. This is not a reliable source to support the claim that the subject is a conspiracy theorist. It's just a person stating their opinion. We'd need a lot more than that to even put that into the body of the article, but for the opening sentence that would have to be something he is primarily notable for. Zaereth (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That argument raises valid BLP concerns. I have edited the protected article accordingly. Best to err on the side of caution when it comes to BLPs. El_C 01:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masood is not professional journalist. He is a medical doctor-turned-anchorperson, [49]. It is disgraceful to journalist community to call Masood a journalist, [50]. Masood is an amateur journalist who left his medical field after little success and joined booming media industry. Due to lack of profession's education, he continues to make conspiracy theories. Störm (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone cares about his success or otherwise in the medical field, no-one is proposing to start the lede by describing him as a physician. MPS1992 (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional sources which mention his conspiracy theories, [51] Dr Shahid Masood, a senior analyst known for his conspiracy theories (please, note that Daily Pakistan is a Urdu-language newspaper so their English translations on the website may not be upto mark but they are reputed Urdu paper and reliable), [52] by Daily Times (Pakistan), [53] by Pakistan Today. Zaereth Please, review the available sources (as most content is in Urdu language which is not easy to access). Störm (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: To give their viewpoint as they are a major contributor to the article. Also, note that Shahid Masood is very much active on WP anonymously and he once threatened User:Saqib on his live TV show. So, don't take him lightly. Störm (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd need a source for both of those allegations. And, I hope "don't take him lightly" is not intended to produce any kind of chilling effect on discussion or editing. MPS1992 (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have enough RS to support that Shahid Masood is indeed a conspiracy theorist. For instance, Daily Times [54], The News International [55]. --Saqib (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first of those two sources may be usable, but the second appears to be yet another opinion piece ("heartless detractors" and so on) which merely mentions Masood once, quite late, in a list of twenty-six people who were among many others that wrongly expressed doubts about a reported illness. Much higher up that list, in that source, is the current Prime Minister Imran Khan, but I don't think we will be using that source to describe him as a "conspiracy theorist" in the lede of his article? MPS1992 (talk) 10:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't plan on going too deep into this. I don't speak Pakistani (or Urdu or Persian or any other languages, except maybe a few Eskimo curse words and other unuq like that). I don't know anything about this person. I do know Wikipolicy and I do know English, and the source I looked at was very well written in English. (No sign of broken English or bad translations.) I stand by my assessment of it.

Storm, first, if you think this should be in the lede of the article, it needs to be described in much greater detail in the body of the article. That means you'd need to find enough sources to write about all the things that make him a conspiracy theorist. We can't just call someone an name and leave it at that. We need to give the whole story of what makes him fit that name. The reader should be able to decide for themselves whether or not he is a conspiracy theorist without ever needing to be told. Once you have that all spelled out in the body, then we can revisit putting it in the lede.

Keep in mind that a person's occupation is what they are usually (primarily) defined as. If he makes money at journalism, then he is a professional journalist regardless of whether he was trained as one or not. Likewise, if someone trains all their life to be a journalist, but never gets a job as one or makes any money at it, then they are not a journalist. The purpose of the opening sentence is to provide a short equation that defines what this person is --what makes them notable-- based on what is found in the body of the article. (ie: So-and-so is... or, So-and-so equals...) So far, nothing in the body suggests or even hints that he is a conspiracy theorist, so that needs to be rectified before we even start to talk about the lede. Zaereth (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Storm, I think I can agree with Zaereth. You need to create a new section titled "conspiracies" and lay down all the false claims by Shahid Masood, including this one - which led Supreme Court to ban his TV show. --Saqib (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem, though, is that neither of those sources describe Masood as a conspiracy theorist. The second, which mentions the three month ban of his TV show, does not contain the word "conspiracy" at all. The first uses the word "conspiracy" once, saying "there was no conspiracy". Very much all of the reliable sources, when introducing the topic of Masood in a factual manner, call him things like "anchorperson and former chairman of Pakistan Television", not "conspiracy theorist", for example this one which relates his release on bail in January 2019. (I note our article mentions the arrest but not the release.) His notability is as a journalist and TV show host -- good, bad, successful, unsuccessful, prone to promoting strange claims or not -- not a conspiracy theorist. It will probably be necessary to give a mention about his making disproven claims in the lede, but they are not defining for his notability. MPS1992 (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. First, the term "conspiracy theorist" is really more of a slang term than a real profession or occupation. When we say, "evolutionary theorist" or "atomic theorist" we know we're talking about someone whose profession or notability comes from making scientific theories. "Conspiracy theorist" is one that most dictionaries have yet to touch. At best, the Cambridge English department vaguely calls it "someone who believes in conspiracies". A few urban dictionaries have given their own definitions, but the connotation is not just that of a believer but of a fanatic (conspiracy nut) or of someone who makes espousing conspiracies a profession, like the producers of Unsolved Mysteries other such shows. Something along those lines is what we'd need to call him a theorist of any kind in the opening sentence, and then it would have to take up a good portion of the article just to show that "this is what this person is."

I feel for you in some ways. There are a lot of journalists right here in the US, especially on the national scene, that I wouldn't believe if their tongues came notarized. That's why I often prefer sources like the BBC, HKN, or France24 for information about the US and other parts of the world. But I can't just start putting labels on them no matter how much I want to, especially in the first sentence, unless I can show that the label is a defining characteristic of them. There are most certainly conspiracy theorists out there, but all I'm seeing here is a journalist that may be good or bad at their job and who may or may not have either beliefs in or reported on conspiracies. Those are things for the reader to decide, we should just give thee facts. Zaereth (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Convicted sex offender? Or pedophile?

I have a question that is related to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#Angela Allen (paedophile), but I more interested in what general principles to follow in similar cases than in this particular case.

Our article on Pedophilia says that "Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children." That's a medical/psychiatric diagnoses.

But our article on the 2009 Plymouth child abuse case says that Allen was convicted of one count of distributing an indecent image of a child and four counts of sexual assault involved children. That's a criminal verdict, not a medical diagnosis.

So should we call someone like Allen a convicted sex offender instead of a pedophile? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The criminal conviction is 100% factual (even if it was a case where the person was innocent, the courts still convicted them of that crime, that's not going to change), whereas padophile is a psychiatric/medic diagnosis and is subject to potential error and fully factual. Definitely per BLP/NOR to stay with the more factual disambiguation term. --Masem (t) 13:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Morrison

This diff to Scott Morrison caught my eye. The Saturday Paper looks like an ok-ish source, but it seems odd that the story hasn't been picked up by any of the larger media outlets. There's nothing in the Fairfax or News Ltd papers, or even the Guardian Australia. Given the subject is Prime Minister of Australia I would have thought there'd be more and better sources if there really was an indication of serious misconduct. Thoughts? --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is curious. The article is behind a paywall, but since there is attribution to the source and it meets WP:RS I don't see much of a problem with the lack of additional coverage. The subject is high profile, so new sources may appear in the future contesting or confirming the added information. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional and POV issues at Kioka Tanksley

Someone with BLP expertise or an interest in addressing promotional and POV issues should take a look at Kioka Tanksley and its editor(s). ElKevbo (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Had a clean up and de-waffle (if thats a word), need to keep an eye on it for COI editing. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the reversion of MilborneOne's changes.-- Deep fried okra 08:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks we appear to have a WP:SPA and possible somebody with a conflict of interest in fluffing out her article, may need to consider protecting or other actions if they return. MilborneOne (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like maybe AfD material here tbh. Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged for notability and improvement of ref's There were removed ref's that were mostly facebook and press releases.-- Deep fried okra 16:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Yasbeck

There were two recent edits by two different IP addresses to the article about Amy Yasbeck. The edits changed references to Yasbeck's transgender son, Noah, as male to refer to him as female [56] [57]. Noah was assigned female at birth and identifies as a man. I reverted these edits since Wikipedia:Gender identity states that precedence is given to self identification, and Noah identifies as a man. Since these two edits both happened recently, I expect it to happen again soon. I checked a source in the article [58] that says Noah has started making online accounts private. If he wants to keep things private, I think maybe he should not be referred to by either name and without any gendered terms (that is to simply state that Ritter and Yasbeck had a child on September 11, 1998 with no references to "son" or "daughter"). Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to name children if they are not actually noteworthy (that is have a wikipedia article or the potential for one), your suggestion seems reasonable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Frances and his Donald Trump controversy

At the Allen Frances article, controversy material was recently added about Trump and some older material. With regard to Trump, I'm concerned about WP:Recentism. The other material may be WP:Undue. Frances is an American psychiatrist, known for his involvement with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). I started the following section at the article's talk page: Talk:Allen Frances#WP:Preserve and WP:Recentism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Wow. Ok, where to begin? I'm not seeing the controversy there. He made a statement of opinion, but where are the widespread public debates over it? I think that merely putting that in a section of its own labeled "controversy" is synthesis and adds undue weight to the statement. Then in the following paragraphs we have a bunch of figures that have nothing to do with the subject, but appear to have been added to give credence to his statement. A classic case of synthesis again. The statement itself might be worth adding if it really shows something about his character (which it does his by far more than Trump's) but only if it is being scrutinized reliable sources and experts in the field, not because an editor thinks it is somehow more important than all the other quotes to choose from. Zaereth (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The preposterous comments that Trump has killed millions more people than Hitler, Stalin and Mao should definitely be part of the record here. It is not synthesis to quote the man but it you want the full text added then we can do that as well. Eerily the comments have not been retracted but the host of the CNN talkshow where the comments were made was taken to task and apologized for not challenging Frances...the host said they technical issues and he couldn't respond in time. I have no comments as to other removals of information.--MONGO (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Frances isnt some talking head...he is Professor Emeritus and former head of Duke University Psychology department and a well known expert. His statements carry weight, even if they are ludicrous.--MONGO (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MONGO. How is this a BLP issue? This Professor said this statement on national TV, it's not some conspiracy theory, BLP is not an excuse to shield an article from criticism. Have you seen the myriad Trump articles we have on Wikipedia? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not seeing it as a BLP issue. He said what he said, it was covered in MSM - in fact, it was on MSM that he said it - and as the former chair of psychiatry at Duke University it was clearly notable. WP:RECENTISM and SYNTH do not apply here. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 08:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I say synth because labeling something a controversy should be followed by evidence that the statement was controversial. The term has a very specific meaning, which can be found in any dictionary, "a widespread, public debate about a topic or issue". There is nothing in the article about such a debate.

I find people on Wikipedia often misuse this word. Whether it is for nefarious reason or simply because they don't know the meaning of it, it does give a certain slant that otherwise would not be there. Then going to various sources which have nothing to do with the subject nor the specific statement he made. It's like watching the news trying to validate a Saturday Night Live sketch. I could see adding all the actual numbers if a reliable source --discussing the quote-- did themselves, but otherwise they give unnecessary weight to a ludicrous statement that need not be there. If someone wants to look up the numbers, then let them, but we shouldn't be going out of our way to add weight to this statement and make it into something bigger than it is. Zaereth (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That he stated the comment that Trump may have killed "millions" more people than the 3 worst mass murderers in the 20th century is notable because Frances is notable. Frances appears to want to attribute all current (none can be proven) and future of these millions to Trump not embracing climate change alarmism, apparently, as he has clarified his remarks.--MONGO (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Where is Collect when you need him? Plenty of famous and influential people have made comments, whether positive or negative, about Trump. That doesn't mean we should include every comment someone has made about Trump. This isn't about protecting Frances from criticism. Zaereth is right that we judge weight and what is a controversy by the preponderance of reliable sources and what they state. We shouldn't call something a controversy unless reliable sources do. That is what Zaereth means by WP:Synthesis. Mention of the Frances statement does not need to be in the lead. Nor should it have its own "Controversy" section. That is WP:Undue, and it is WP:Recentism. Do we know how this statement is going to line up with Frances's career? No. Is it as important as other things he's done? No. There are no reliable sources to indicate that this statement is as important as, for example, Frances being known for his involvement with the DSM. And the rest of the text that was in that section had nothing at all to do with Trump, and should never have been added. Also likely what Zaereth meant by WP:Synthesis. And looking at Muboshgu's recent edits there, Muboshgu agrees with what Zaereth and I have stated. Thank you, Muboshgu. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the among of detail on Frances page is too much; it's important that he's spoken out against Trump related to climate change, yes, but there doesn't seem to be an excessive amount of controversy here, particularly since Frances clarified himself later about the numbers. Most of the content feels more appropriate on some page about criticism towards Trump, where these details can be explained, but they don't need to try to make out Frances as some wacko. With the wording on Frances' page, it seems more an attack on Frances, where the issue is just how Frances spoke of his numbers on the off-the-cuff interview and later clarified them. --Masem (t) 19:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno...Frances also apparently was doing a Twitter dance upon hearing one of the Koch brothers died. I never said wacko...course a reliable source might do so. If notable people are going to go full Godwin's law and make over the top ludicrous statements that even under clarification are preposterous, covering this up is unencyclopedic. Is his page suppose to just be about his achievements? Maybe the fact that Duke University, in response to his deaths comment have stated bluntly that he is retired and has no role at that institution anymore. That they are apparently also distancing themselves seems to be notable as well. I repeat I did not say wacko.--MONGO (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The statement might very well be notable. II may be the ranting of someone going senile. II don't know, nor is it my place to judge. I do think it needs to be put into proportion with the rest of the article, and that means determining just how much of a stir this has created, are people all over talking about it, and does it have any particular impact on his life and career and, if so, how much in proportion to the rest of the article? ((It's not a very long article for someone who is apparently such a notable person.) I don't think we should be adding to it just for the sake of taking up more space, using sources that never once mention the subject. If it's a big controversy, then stick to what the sources say and give it the same proportion of weight they do. It's not our job to either support nor refute his words. Zaereth (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St Ninian's Falkland

St Ninian's Falkland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The most prominent thing in the article purporting to be about a school is two criminal convictions, very detailed. Some attention needed. Warning: unsuitable for editors disturbed by accounts of sexual offences. Uncle G (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual abuse cases in the Congregation of Christian Brothers#Scotland

Also no sources cited for shorter content in other articles. Uncle G (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That article reads like a rap sheet. Not at all encyclopedic. Nearly all of the sources appear to be primary ones, and few inline to support such statements. This looks like it's in need of some serious work, if not deletion for lack of secondary sources and encyclopedic tone. Zaereth (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- My first impulse was to WP:CSD#G100 the thing. I redirected to Sexual abuse cases in the Congregation of Christian Brothers#Scotland for now. This thing was created 28 July by Mwm390 who had not edited since 2011. I still want to G10 the thing.-- Deep fried okra 08:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bit concerned we are naming individuals without any references, appear to be a lot of accusations on the page rather than "cases" per the article title. MilborneOne (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Buried in amongst all of the stuff that wasn't the subject, there were in fact three sentences that were about the school, sourced to Zwolinski 1998, although one wouldn't know it from the bad bare URL citations. I am tempted to restore (only) that part. The source goes into quite a lot of detail on the school, supporting far more than a mere 3 sentences. Would that the article creator had written about the actual subject! Uncle G (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Zwolinski, Frank A. (1998). "The Congregation of Christian Brothers in Scotland, 1951–1983". The Innes Review. 49 (1). Edinburgh University Press: 11–40. doi:10.3366/inr.1998.49.1.11. ISSN 1745-5219. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Doxing pornstar BLPs on Wikipedia

There has been a recent rise in doxing the real name of pornstars that have not revealed their real name in public. IP editors using unreliable sources (forums, blogs, and original research) are editing pornstar articles. I cannot share links without increasing the damage. I have requested RevDel for the edits and have found help in doing that. But I think we should have a mention of doxing on WP:BLP and that it clearly qualifies for RevDel. WP:BLPPRIVACY only includes "phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc.". I think it should include real name doxing of people that have consistently used stage names and have not revealed their birth name or real name. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should email the oversight team and have an oversighter review for possible suppression. See also User:TonyBallioni/BLP private info as a template for warning people. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also worthy of consideration is that most porn performers are not notable, because the only coverage they receive is promotionalism in inherently unreliable porn industry trade publications. Those BLPs should be deleted, which has the side benefit of eliminating the risk of doxxing. Of course, many of the best known porn performers are actually notable, but the sources used in their biographies should be of the highest possible reliability. Any editor who persists in using unreliable sources to reveal the real world identities of porn performers who have not revealed those identities themselves should be blocked for a very long time. Porn performers are real human beings with feelings and futures, and they are as entitled to the careful protection of BLP policy as anyone else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are clearly notable pornstars I am talking about but it also applies to other notable people for whom only a stage name can be reliably sourced. I was hoping for a change to WP:BLP to mention doxing in general, to include people (actors, YouTube people, other social media personalities and pornstars) that only use their stage name and whose real name is not found in any RS. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the real name is not found in any reliable source, then wouldn't it qualify for WP:BLPREMOVE? I thought the point of WP:BLPPRIVACY was that certain information should be given extra protection and thus has to be "widely published" in reliable sources. The ordinary BLP protection against unsourced or non-reliably sourced content would seem sufficient. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doxing is just as damaging or more damaging to a pornstar (or YouTube star or Twitch user) as revealing their address. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing easily qualifies for revdel under criterion WP:RD2 and notifying Oversight, but try to limit the breadcrumbs (see Streisand effect, email oversight and don't post about it publicly, etc). AGF and use TonyBallioni's warning if you have some reason to think it's not malicious, but it's hard to see how it could not be intentional disruption. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

wild & crazy kids

I am one of the people who starred as the host of the nickelodeon show wild & crazy kids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_%26_Crazy_Kids my legal professional name is Jessica Gaynes, and I would like to know why someone has allowed all of the male hosts to have their names linked to their imdb profile, But my name has had the link removed, almost immediately every single time I added it to the same article page that their names have imdb links. This is biased gender discriminating treatment of both me (Jessica Gaynes) and the other female host (Annette Chavez). To be clear: Annette starred in the first season (production was in 1990) and I starred in the second and third seasons (1991 and 1992) This is abusive and it's been going on for years already, maybe you should investigate who has been doing this and what their agenda has been. Please fix this and please respond to this message. Thank you, 8/27/2019 Genderdiscriminated (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)genderdiscriminated[reply]

@Genderdiscriminated: We have a project to increase the presence of women in Wikipedia. Can you link to where the guys have IMDB's? I could not find articles here for Jessica Gaynes or Annette Chavez. Anyone around from WP:women in red? Perhaps y'all can help with this?-- Deep fried okra 08:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Wild & Crazy Kids-- Deep fried okra 08:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not finding it, either. We normally only use IMDB links as external links when it’s a BLP. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 08:31, 27 August 20

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0420110/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Jeffcoat Genderdiscriminated (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)genderdiscriminated[reply]

here's mine ... https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0310961/ Genderdiscriminated (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)genderdiscriminated[reply]

We neither know nor care about what you post on your facebook page. If you were blocked from editing, it would be for actions on Wiki? What Wikipedia username did you use to create a page about Gaynes? -- Deep fried okra 08:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find the deleted article. -- Deep fried okra 08:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I start a page for myself linking from the tv show article? The other male actors have bare minimum name pages on here that also link to their imdb. I just need my name to have a page that links to the article and also to my imdb which is: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0310961/

I dont' how to do this. It's very simple if you know how. Can someone help me, because the last time I did it after a lot of trial and error, it was deleted immediately by someone else, even though the male actors have the exact same kind profile name pages and imdb links Genderdiscriminated (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)genderdiscriminated[reply]

See the following: Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia. When you get the Draft created, it will go through Articles for Creation (AfC) and be reviewed. Also see WP:SELFPROMOTE ^Atsme _Talk 📧 09:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)lease read WP:autobiography. We discourage autobiographies because of the conflict of interest. Please bear in mind that you might not meet the relevant notability guideline, WP:NACTOR. Your best bet is to create a Draft via the WP:AFC process and submit it for publication.-- Deep fried okra 09:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i don't think Jeffcoat meets WP:NACTOR. I nominated the article for deletion.-- Deep fried okra 09:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Genderdiscriminated Wikipedia has lots of gaps in TV shows of that era. Wikipedia started in 2001 and we have very good coverage of entertainment in that era, less good from before that. You can file a request at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biography/By_profession#Actors ideally with some references to published independent reviews of the program. Did you do a scrap book at the time of press coverage of the show? If so it would be really useful to list publications, page numbers and dates of that coverage. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My main complaint is that if I don't meet notability then neither do the male actors I starred with. And if I cannot self submit a link to imdb.com and a book about Nickelodeon by a major publisher we were all interviewed and featured released for sale in 2013, then the male actors should be deleted too. Genderdiscriminated (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)genderdiscriminated[reply]

we had equally sized co-host roles, so if they qualify I also qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genderdiscriminated (talk • contribs) 20:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't necessarily true. They could be notable for reasons other than hosting that show, depending on their total body of work. Not saying that they are notable, or that you aren't, but the fact that all were co-hosts of that show doesn't mean that, if one is notable, all must be. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They might not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Jeffcoat. MPS1992 (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thanks for Don Jeffcoat. I'd appreciate knowing of any others like that.-- Deep fried okra 20:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"so if they qualify I also qualify"-- Maybe not, but even so-- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Jeffcoat-- Deep fried okra 20:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Genderdiscriminated, but that's what is often called denying the antecedent, which is a type of false equivalence or a logical fallacy. I'm not saying that to be mean, but simply to point out that your statement may not always be true. For instance, while gender is not a reason to discriminate against becoming a doctor or an astronaut, their schooling, their training, level of competence, and other factors do merit discrimination. (You wouldn't want an untrained or incompetent surgeon regardless of gender, would you?) On Wikipedia we don't discriminate by gender either. We have a simple process for determining notability, which is coverage in reliable sources. If your male coworkers had articles written about them in newspapers, magazines, books, TV interviews, etc., then they qualify for an article. If you have similar sources writing articles about you, then you most certainly qualify as well. But, a lot of times you either have to wait for a fan to come along and write something or come to a place like people above have suggested with a list of your own sources. I'm sure someone here would be happy to write an article if for no other reason than to add it to their list of accomplishments, but we're all volunteers here who often have day jobs and other responsibilities, so please don't be surprised if we don't rush out to do all the research ourselves. Any help you could provide in the research part would help, because most notable people are aware (and often even keep scrap-books and other records) of the things that were written about them. Zaereth (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Holowka

The article is currently semi-protected for BLP violations. However, I believe Zoë Quinn's accusations should be added to the article. Below are the sources:

Bonfiglio, Nahila (August 27, 2019). "Zoë Quinn says they were abused and harassed by famed gaming developer". The Daily Dot. Retrieved August 27, 2019.
Cooper, Dalton (August 27, 2019). "Zoe Quinn Accuses Night in the Woods Dev of Abuse". Game Rant. Retrieved August 27, 2019.
Donovan, Imogen (August 27, 2019). "Zoe Quinn accuses Night in the Woods developer Alec Holowka of abuse". Video Gamer. Retrieved August 27, 2019.
Tamburro, Paul (August 27, 2019). "Night in the Woods creator Alec Holowka accused of abuse by Zoe Quinn". Game Revolution. Retrieved August 27, 2019.

Regards, 153.174.18.139 (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should make your request at the article Talk page using Template:Edit semi-protected. You will have to put in the precise changes you want made, not just generalities.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I can try to do so, but another IP user will remove my edit request from the talk page like this, which is why I came here. If no one cares, that's fine. 153.174.18.139 (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 723: / Line 723: @@
 Regards, [[Special:Contributions/153.174.18.139|153.174.18.139]] ([[User talk:153.174.18.139|talk]]) 21:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 :You should make your request at the article Talk page using [[Template:Edit semi-protected]]. You will have to put in the precise changes you want made, not just generalities.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 22:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
+::I suppose I can try to do so, but another IP user will remove my edit request from the talk page like [[Special:Diff/912725387|this]], which is why I came here. If no one cares, that's fine. [[Special:Contributions/153.174.18.139|153.174.18.139]] ([[User talk:153.174.18.139|talk]]) 22:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards