Talk:Julie Bindel/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Stonewall protest, and separatism

Unfortunately my original response to this got lost, must have been an update conflict.

Not everything Bindel has written can go in. So, she hates Arsenal, and got 180 comments about that. She doesn't like Barbie. She doesn't like vegetarians. Hating men gets even more comments. What is special about her not liking kids in the summer holidays? However, she has a demonstrable concern about issues connected with domestic child abuse, and she has dealt with this on more than one occasion. It would be possible to put together a complete and comprehensive list of what she has written about, but I don't have that time myself, and that is not the point of a biography. The main themes are what are important - rape, domestic violence, gay and lesbian issues, murder of partners, human trafficking, sex tourism, prostitution, violence against women, sex offenders, child protection, and transsexualism. Her role as an academic, head of department, government advisor, researcher, the reports she has been involved in, books contributed to and been quoted in, her entry into journalism before the Guardian, her writing for the Guardian, the reactions to her writing, with a focus on her writing on transsexualism, the response to that, the debates that followed, the award for all the things detailed above, the protest against the award, the response to the protest, the second debate, the piece on a return to the radical lesbian feminism of the 70s, and the response.

As I recall, the discussion around the protest was that it was about Stonewall and not Bindel, this is confirmed in a few places - the photos below, the lesbilicious piece, and Bindel's comment.

Best not to pre-judge the process, Benji has worked hard on a topic he had no interest in previously, and I have confidence in him. The conversation kept digressing and eventually stalled. A new approach that build on the work already done will provide an opportunity for a new start, but it would be nice if this was not prejudiced from before it starts. That suggests an unwillingness to accommodate other points of view. Once the material that cannot be used is removed, the language rendered inert, acceptable quotes decided, and new material inserted to ensure that this is a biography about Bindel and not focused on one issue amongst many she has written on, then it will be possible to discuss what is missing or needs to still go in and reach a consensus. If no consensus can be reached, then we would either RfC as a BLP, or go back to admin for arbitration.

Is there a reference to her being a lesbian separatist in a legitimate source? I'm sure she is, but the only self-reference I have come across is as 'radical lesbian feminist'.

Mish (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with much of this. However, discussion didn't stall - Benjiboi refused to participate in the discussion, and set about trying to write a version of the article on his own. As all of Benjiboi's proposed drafts have been quite problematic thusfar, and since he has been the most partisan of the pro-Bindel editors, I have real doubts about his ability to come up (at least on his own) with a treatment of the disputed sections that is in any way neutral.

This is something that needs to be discussed and thrashed out so that we can get something that everyone here is happy with - not attempting to smash through a biased draft without actually gaining anything resembling consensus support for it. Rebecca (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Benji did come here discussing, but others did not keep to the point, as noted by admin. So far discussion has yielded little other than digression and accusations. I am not aware of any pro-Bindel editors - not in this round of discussion anyway - this is the problem. You seem to be under the illusion that anti-Bindel editors should 'own' Bindel's biography for some reason. Had there been pro-Bindel voices editors amongst the editors, you might have had a point, but the fact they weren't, and anybody seeking to redress this imbalance gets bullied, accused of bias, and their comments drowned in a sea of irrelevant points by people who are 'anti-Bindel', and for whom the only interest in this biography is to paint her as a transphobic monster (who even hates children - hsssss). All that needs to happen is to ensure the references are right, from reputable sources, that the text accurately reflects what is written, citations are representative and not stitched in with perjorative words to convey meanings that are not in the original, and that this issue is set in the context of her broader career, and that her whole work is covered - not focusing primarily on one issue that is really of interest to a very small group of people compared with the overall impact of her work. To make out otherwise is not supported by the sources, and it would be synthetic to make out otherwise. I don't blame Benji for avoiding discussion - I am also sick with the verbal violence that accompanies any discussion about Bindel. I see not reason why he should tolerate verbal assaults, when he has generously given his time to try and redress a problem here that is also clear to admins who have looked at it. Mish (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Rebecca on this - trying to deal with Benjiboi when one isn't on his side is very frustrating. He engages in a scattergun approach, some of what he says has merit but as there's so much of it and he operates at level 4 of Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Discuss_with_the_other_party the pyramid here one doesn't find out until after it's made it to a noticeboard, which just generates the impression to outside editors and admins that there's pointless editwarring going on and scares off editors that genuinely want to help. Some of what he's engaged in is also listed in WP:CON as bad practice E.g. forum shopping, trying to "reset" discussion whenever it goes against his view and trying to get more and more editors/admins involved until someone supports him, he doesn't seem to assume good faith and going away and blanket statments that "I'll see that X is removed if you like it or not" and working on an article in secret in your own userspace hardly inspires confidence in his willingness to reach some sort of consensus and really stretch my own ability to WP:AGF. This isn't an isolated incident, there was a bigger fuss over the BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant article, other stuff in 2008 and something similar looks like the same is happening over on the Gene Robinson article. We can manage a good discussion whenever he's not about but in general, the view I've reached is that whatever article he's engaged on he doesn't stop until he gets his way - I'll try to contribute as much as I can to this article but to be honest all I feel I can do now is stop it becoming a total fan page. ~Excesses~ (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Rebecca, if you look at the events this all started when Benjiboi without warning edited the page to his own version, this was reverted several times on the grounds that it violated wikipedia policies, there was little discussion on this only repeated comments that it violated policies even though a consensus had been agree last year. In the end the page was protected and since then Benji still seems to be determined to force their own view through. ZoeL (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The impression I got was that it did violate the policies, and the argument was about whether a consensus could overrule BLP policy. Whether it could or not, as there was no such consensus now, the material had to go - although the policy states that material that is not acceptable has to go immediately, and then be discussed. That process was in place, and engaged in by Benji and myself, but not by the 'anti-Bindel' editors. What could or could not be allowed within the BLP was not discussed - it was argued about. Arguing tends not to yield a consensus, but a stalemate, especially when ramped up with the sorts of personal attacks that have been directed at me and Benji. I am happy to discuss specific points when people are prepared to come to the table and discuss the points - but so far what has happened is what is specifically stated should not happen on this page, discussion (or argument really) about the issues. Until then, I cannot see the point in trying to have a discussion - even one about what a terrible person Benji is (which is still not addressing the points raised, it is ad hominem). Stop the ad hominem arguments - whether about me, Benji, or Bindel - and we can have a discussion. Stop using this page primarily as an extension to all the sites and blogs devoted to trashing Bindel - and we can have a discussion. That is not what a BLP is for. Have a look at this Garry Glitter or this Harold Shipman. You will see that Shipman's focuses on the events in his life that he was notorious for, because he was known for little else. Glitter, on the other hand, while notorious because he was convicted as a paedophile, was notable because of his other activities in the entertainment business. Note the tone in both articles, despite being despicable, they are dealt with as one would expect from an encyclopedic entry. The same is true for people like Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin. Yet, here we are defending a simple point - that Bindel should be dealt with no less fairly than these despicable characters. I am surprised to see you two persisting with this line of argument, I would have thought by now you would be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves; the fact that you aren't disturbs me - and to be honest, if you aren't ashamed, I certainly am ashamed of you. Mish (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a little bit random. I have continually stated throughout the discussion that I believe the pre-Guardian section needs to be considerable expanded for balance, and that her own words, quoted in full context, are the best way of presenting her views in the article. I thought that we had at least agreed on that much; evidently, since you're still accusing anyone who isn't a Bindel fangirl of wanting to turn the page into some sort of screed, we have not. Rebecca (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Good, so will you be pleased to know that I am working on her writing before she became a journalist, her entry into journalism and writing for other newspapers, the main themes covered in her work with the Guardian before the 2004 article and since according to which have received the most attention from her or her readers. (MishMich, unsigned)

Tenatively, yes. As long as it doesn't veer into barbie dolls territory like the ridiculous example further up the page, this should hopefully be an improvement to the article. Rebecca (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth comparing how Sheila Jeffreys is discussed: she holds similar views to Bindel, including about transsexuals, but has explicitly identified herself as a lesbian separatist. I think her entry is quite matter-of-fact.

Sheila Jeffries is mentioned in the rewrite. Mish (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Bindel herself comes close to self-identifying as a lesbian separatist in this quote: "Someone put an advert in a local shop window: "Room available in Jewish lesbian separatist household. Must be vegetarian. No male children or pets." I was interviewed by the cooperative that owned that house..."[1], but she does self-identify as a political lesbian and opposes heterosexual sex: "why some feminists then block out the possibility of sexual relationships with their political sisters and instead turn to men for intimacy is beyond me"[2]. It would be strange not to mention that in the article. Fences and windows (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I recall that she describes herself as a political lesbian feminist, and described herself as not being the cozy/comfortable type of lesbian. I will go back to the interview and check. Unless there is a source for lesbian separatist (not that there is a problem if she did identify thus) whatever we might think her views mean, I don't see why we would say that she is. Mish (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A mention of the "Big Brothel" report Bindel co-wrote for the POPPY Project[3][4][5][6] and the reaction to it[7][8][9] should also be included. Fences and windows (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have some of this, I'll check we have it all. Mish (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Sorry but in regards to ZoeL, Rebecca and Excesses nee Zoe Connell; Mish's comments are quite spot on. I am only going by reliable sources but BLP, as has been pointed out by numerous editors, non-negotiable. We don't insert poorly sourced contentious material, we remove it, not after a prolonged discussion where we slice through the motives of an editor we disagree, we remove it immediately. That's what I tried to do and had to get admin support because it was promised to be reinserted as soon as the article became unprotected. Shuould I have been more please and thank you very much about it all - probably. But that hardly excuses the repeated bullying and character assassination that shows little sign of letting up. We are required to be civil to each other and I have been on the receiving end of near-continuous bad faith. I simply won't allow the article to be used to attack Bindel. It's not right and it makes us all look bad. Bindel has had published nearly 200 articles - perhaps more - and we should integrate the "reactions to" content into a larger section about her writing. IMHO any "reactions to" or "criticism of" section shows inherantly POV (poor) writing. In looking at the work I've done absolutely all the edits outside this one section seem to have been met with little concern. This supports the assertion made in multiple forums that this is the core issue and needs to be balanced and put into proper context. No one has suggested the subject can't be discussed, should be whitewashed, glossed over etc etc, only that it be presented NPOV which it has not for the last months. If we have to go to mediation I'm all for it but I will not stand by on any BLP article while we mudsling. It makes everything we do on every article disreputable to do so. -- Banjeboi 02:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Good-sourcing is non-negotiable. BLP is non-negotiable. However, NPOV is also non-negotiable, and I think there's been a persistent problem with most of your proposed rewrites crossing over into SPOV. To that extent, I would appreciate if you could read and respond to my response to your comment (under the "Section break" header), since I think it pertains right to the heart of where we're stuck at the moment.

I would like to sit down and discuss this article disputed section by disputed section until we get it right. This is impossible if one protagonist to the dispute will not participate in the discussion. I will not accept the adoption of sympathetic point of view as a replacement for neutral point of view on this article, and I will not stand by while you try and abuse BLP policies as a shield to cover partisan editing. Your every contribution to this discussion has been to pop in every couple of days and make a post almost exactly the same as the one you just did; I can't remember even one attempt to address the concerns of anyone else who posted on this talk page, even where they've for the most part agreed with the things you've suggested.

Having said this, I've persistently said that I don't think we're so far apart that we can't come to a consensus: something that's neutral, well-sourced, and acceptable to all concerned - including you, Benjiboi. It just requires you to actually come to the damn table and discuss it. Rebecca (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sure this is correct. It will be a better biography because of this, and will give as even-handed an account of one issue in the context of her career, but without going into fine detail. I really think you should let it get done, because we know what the earlier version said. We can build on that, and then you can respond. But, it needs to get done first. The information was available to anyone who cared to look - you have said that you wanted for this to be included - now it is happening, at least let us get on with it without undermining the process before it starts. Mish (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have more faith in your ability to come up with a neutral article than I do Benjiboi, since you have at least tried to work towards NPOV rather than SPOV. However, I don't believe it is possible to get a neutral article when it is written by partisans from one side without input from the other - particularly when - as I strongly suspect Benjiboi will do based on past example - such a draft is likely to be the subject of an attempt to force it in without changes while the article is protected. It isn't a good sign when past attempts to suggest changes to Benji's drafts have been roundly ignored. Rebecca (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Rebecca, although I think that not being familiar with this (being a UK issue) as us, he may be more neutral. I agree that it is difficult to get a neutral article when it is written by partisans, and this is why - no matter how hard people tried - it was a problem, even for previous admins. We still don't have input from one side as far as I can see. However, I am not hostile towards Bindel, and I am sympathetic to the hurt felt by some people. If you like, and if Benji agrees, I can relocate the edit to my sandbox, and play with it a bit more (mostly mundane stuff formatting citations & inserting new citations, checking recordings said what), and get it to a point where it can be presented and comments sought. The mundane stuff will take time, so please be patient. Mish (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. As long as it's going to be discussed, that changes can be made and a consensus gathered before the draft touches the public article, it seems like a decent step forward. Rebecca (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A sandbox version of the article would be good; I'm very confused as a late entrant to the debate as to what is being proposed to be included, what sources will be used, and how it will be phrased. I agree with the suggestion of not having a "Criticism" or "Reaction" section, but Bindel wouldn't have half the notability she has now without her controversial writing, so it needs to be given due weight. Not many other anti-rape and anti-male violence campaigners have such a high profile. Her columns help fund her real research work, and as such she has an incentive to put a cat among the pigeons. Fences and windows (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and the articles she has received the most comments for have been (in order of interest generated) radical lesbian feminism, drug rape, LGBT inclusion, prostitution, rape, domestic violence and murder; transsexualism features quite low in terms of responses to her writing, only receiving a bit more attention than her hatred of Arsenal. If it features prominently, it does so because of the protest (which was about Stonewall, not her, as per the quote). I agree she has a high profile because of her controversial writing, but not because of her writing on trans issues; that is one aspect of her writing, and accounts for a very small proportion of her output. It would be wrong to ignore the reaction, but it would be wrong to over-emphasise it either. There has been only one article that can be established as having used derogatory language, and apologised for, and two at the Guardian dealing with transsexualism where she explains why she is opposed to the current treatment. That is the style of her column, it is commentary not reporting. before the 'offensive' piece, she wrote one piece for a different paper, and this did not use derogatory language, but made clear her views. Since then she wrote a piece about a comedian's skit about losing women's toilets to create gender-neutral toilets, which mentions transgender. She was interviewed by a leading trans activist, and debated with two trans activists, a psychiatrist and a gay rights campaigner. Is there much more to say beyond this, apart from some transsexuals did not like her expressed views on transsexualism and still felt angered by the comments five years ago, and protested her award by Stonewall? Oh yes, she subsequently wrote a piece complaining about this, and how she did not want to be included in LGBT, and took part in a debate with a leading US trans activist, and then life went on as usual and she appears to continue to write about issues that concern her: lesbian feminism, domestic violence, rape, murder, prostitution, etc. Her profile, in relation to work with the government, began before she went into journalism, as evidenced by dates on publications, her time at Leeds University, and her role as departmental head at the University of North London; this was not a consequence of her journalism, the journalism developed out of that work. Have I missed anything? Mish (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If this page keeps filling up with discussion, the valuable points and references made will get lost in the detail. Mish (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

controversity and derogatory

The only problem I have with your first proposal there is that there are (at least to my knowledge) no secondary sources backing up her articles on those topics being controversial outside of The Guardian's website. If the sources exist, then certainly put that in, but otherwise I think it risks delving into WP:OR territory.

It's also incorrect to state that there was only one trans-related article that used derogatory language. This is a claim that originated entirely with Bindel; rather, she has used derogatory language in every article she has written on the subject, up to and including her most recent one. The only sources that support the contention that this was all a fuss about one article come straight from the mouth of Bindel, or in some cases her supporters. I'm quite open to any suggestions about how to proceed in this area; my suggestion would be to start with Benjiboi's draft above, with a fairer summary of the language she actually used, and expanded in similar style to cover the incidents not included there - and that this should be part of a section on her time at the Guardian, or her views in general, as opposed to a criticism section or something of the like.

Beyond this, I just don't think we're far apart at all. Your last two sentences in particular are very true; she's a figure with a history in public life going back decades, this is a relatively recent controversy, and I seriously doubt you or Benji are going to be met with any argument on any material prior to this decade, or, for the most part, anything non-trans-related in this decade. This is one useful thing that I think can emerge from the proposed ground-up rewrite. Rebecca (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a value judgement that more than one article was derogatory - because there is no way of verifying this claim. She stated her views, did not use offensive language, and no complaint was made or investigated. I am sure people were offended about her views, but that does not mean she used derogatory language. I have read the articles, and cannot see any derogatory language prior to the protest apart from the 2004 piece and possibly depending on how you read the one about gender-neutral toilets. he problem is that there is no verification that it was considered offensive - unlike the 2004 piece. I have to admit that I was surprised when I looked into this how little was offensive, other than her having her views about transsexualism, because I thought so too. The reaction to her views is only evidence of the reaction, not proof that what was said was offensive. (as with the NUS motion, if it were admissible, would only be evidence that the NUS expressed a view that she is transphobic, not that she is transphobic). It looks as if she refrained from writing on trans between 2004 and 2007, and from 2007 on, she was very careful not to use derogatory language, but confine herself to her views on transsexualism.

No. It is not original research. This is a talk page, and I am explaining to you why it is wrong to assume that her prominence is because of her trans writing. As this is a BLP, and she is a writer, her writings and citations are relevant and can be included in their own right. In a BLP you can point to the corpus of a writer's work, and my explaining that this is reasonable because XYZ is not featured in the article. What would be OR would be if I were to say in the article that Bindel's writing is important because XYZ without citing a reliable source. I'm not doing that, I am saying what her writing covers, and this is be verified by referencing her writing. I can say her writing is (considered) controversial if somebody said that about her, or if she claims this herself. To say that it is controversial because of one piece (or specific set of pieces) would be more problematic, as no reliable source suggests this. As I recall, the Big Brothel report was seen as controversial, and I shall see what I can dig up about that. Mish (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a value judgement that more than one article was derogatory: she used offensive language in more than one article, and this is represented in the sources. I'll say it again: the idea that this was a kerfuffle solely around one article is one that originated with Bindel, is not represented in any secondary sources, and thus has no basis on which to be claimed in this article. I have not argued for the inclusion of anything beyond a) what she said, and b) the response to what she said. To state in the article that it was a fuss around one article is to both draw conclusions on our part, and draw conclusions that are not supported by the available sources.

I am not arguing that the article should state that her prominence is because of her trans writing. I have stated in nearly every response I have made in the last week that the article needs to mention the other areas Bindel has covered as not to create issues of undue weight. As to the rest of your response, I think we might be arguing at cross purposes here: what you just said concerning OR and controversial topics is basically what I was trying to say before (implying controversy without secondary sources = bad) - I think I had misread the first part of your previous post. Rebecca (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

On the second point, that is great - so we have no issues about original research or synthesis over inclusion of her other writings. On the first point we need to agree to differ. I can see nothing in her writing that is derogatory, although I can see why her views are offensive to some, and all I have seen is that those connected to the protest see her expressing her views as derogatory. However, she is allowed to hold her views. I understand that people feel she should not be allowed to express the views she has. But she can, and can slearly do so without recourse to derogatory language. Read the two articles, and show me the derogatory language and where she uses it, and cite an independent source that verifies this. You have being saying this for days - but not come up with anything. Instead of keep repeating this mantra, put the evidence immediately after this paragraph and please do not engage me in further discussion until you have. Mish (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've finally gotten my unshaped internet connection back tonight, and I've been reading through essentially Bindel's whole collection of writings going back several years. It reinforces my opinion that the attempt to frame this as a dispute over one article cannot be sustained on the available sources. This said, I will certainly concede that at least the first article lacked the incendiary language of some of her later work, and it was useful for determining appropriate weighting in the broader article.

Having read through her articles as a whole, I'm increasingly convinced that we need a setup along the lines of this: a brief mention of the Claudia article, a slightly more detailed outline of the "gender benders" article, brief discussion of the response (the Hayley letter and either Bindel's own admission from the "apology" that "no other topic I have addressed in this newspaper has attracted such fury" or the Guardian's response would more than suffice), brief raising of the Hecklers debate outlining her contentions and Peter Tatchell's response, brief mention of the "apology" and the "leave me alone" piece, and the Stonewall protest. All of this is sourced to watertight sources, and could be gotten over and done with in three or four paragraphs, something that would hardly be undue weight in light of the proposed rewrite of the remainder of the article, and we can be done with this. Rebecca (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine, so we are in broad agreement then, and this is what I am aiming at in the revision - as you will see already reflected in the draft being worked on. Although it may be a bit too comprehensive at the moment, it can always be edited down as long as this does not impair the impartiality. I note that you have yet to illustrate anything specifically derogatory in the two other pieces she has written about transsexualism - the one about Russell Reid and the one about the then impending Heckler's debate. Please be aware that the accurate sourcing and reformatting all citations to wikipedia standards is time consuming. I have integrated sufficient relevant material about the Big Brothel now. I would also like to ask whether anybody has any sources relating to her work on changing the law so that women subjected to long-term domestic violence who murder their husband/partner will not get prosecuted for murder, as I recall this was a bit controversial. Mish (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Claudia piece wasn't particularly derogatory, but it's important both for context and in establishing her views - it attracted a fair bit of discussion, and was written in the midst of discussion on the Gender Recognition Act (a fact which People for Change notes here) If anything it presents her in a better light since in tone it's nothing like her later work.

I'm not sure that it is appropriate to use the "My trans mission" article as the central source for the Hecklers debate; in fact, I'm not sure it's a good source for the subject at all. The actual debate is online, and while she might have taken a less incendiary tone in her column, she made remarks widely taken to be promoting reparative therapy in the actual debate which sparked a shitstorm of controversy in the trans community. I'm having difficulty locating a watertight source for that controversy; as such, a less fraught path might be to use merely her contention that GRS is mutilation, and Tatchell's published quote (from the Sunday Mail) that Bindel was "putting ideology before people".

Can you give me a rough timeframe for the domestic violence law? Now I've got a decent internet connection back, I've got access to practically every newspaper article either by Bindel or mentioning Bindel in the last few years, so if it's mentioned, I should be able to dig it up. Rebecca (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Bindel isn't the source for the Hecker's debate, she is the source for her article about the Hecklers debate. PfC & the BBC are sources for the Hecklers debate. We need not delve too deeply into the debate, but where she describes surgery as unnecessary mutilation, because that is her view, and that is the thesis she presents to the panel, which they debated, sure. And if you have what Tatchel is reported saying that she puts ideology before people, then that was his view about her views. There is no suggestion in the debate or eslewhere that what she said was derogatory. If it were derogatory, it would be so for those alleged to be mutilators, not those alleged to be victims. I see no sources to bear this out. You only get from what she has said about 'talking-cures' to reparative therapy by interpreting her words to mean that. She does not say this. You might think she means this, but that is adding to what she said. Because her views come from a tradition that is deeply invested in anti psychiatry and has been strongly opposed to the treatment of sexuality as a form of pyschiatric disorder, and has actively opposed reparative therapy, I personally find this suggestion deeply offensive. My feelings about that are beside the point, though, the point is that you cannot validate the claim that she is talking about reparative therapy, only that some people think that is what she meant, and even then I doubt you will find valid sources to back that up - so it cannot enter the biography. The biography is not about a group of people's beliefs about Bindel, but about Bindel, and gossip won't pass muster, even gossip on blogs etc. (such as the discussion about Jamie Lee Curtis and AIS). The views and motives of people engaged in a protest are not particularly relevant to a biography - only to that protest. To go too deeply into this turns the biography from being about Bindel to being about the views some people have about her, that is gossip and this is not the place to discuss views or gossip about people. Mish (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote more carefully. I specifically said that this should not go in the article - only that, in the circumstances, I am wary about implications being drawn from her related Guardian piece. I'm not really sure why you're getting into whether 'mutilation' is derogatory (since there's no question of asserting any sort of meta-conclusion here); the sole issue for the article is that we mention a) what she said, and b) what Tatchell said in response, and leave the judgements for the readers. I'm also not sure why you're suddenly ranting about gossip, considering that I'm only actually proposing two sentences on the subject, both of which you seem to agree with. Rebecca (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I got sucked in didn't I? I thought you were inserting the issue of reparative therapy because you saw it in the context of the derogatory language issue we were discussing. It is unusual to introduce a topic that should not go in when nobody has suggested it should. The same is true for the 'unnecessary mutilation', I though that as we were discussing whether her language was derogatory or not, you were citing this as an instance of that. So, to be clear, she did not use derogatory language in the piece on Hecklers, but we will refer to it as an example of her writing on these issues between 2004 and the protest, and we will refer to the debate, by quoting the motion as proposed, and give Tatchell's response to that as the only one quoted in another source. And you won't mention derogatory language that cannot be substantiated post-2004 or beliefs that 'talking therapy means 'reparative therapy', which is deviation, again. Mish (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I only raised her comments in the Hecklers speech was because I was concerned about how the "My trans mission" article was going to be spun in the text, and I'll leave judgement on that until I actually see a draft. I'm not sure why we're having discussions about what we think or don't think is derogatory - if we're going to summarise what she's written, then the readers can make up their own minds; beyond that, the few response sources there seems to be agreement to include (the Hayley letter, Tatchell's response from Hecklers, and the Stonewall rally) can stand on their own. If we can agree on this much, I think we're a lot of the way there.

Beyond that, I think if we proceed from there, I'm mainly concerned about how some of these articles will be spun - specifically the "my trans mission" and "leave me alone" articles. I'll leave the first one for now until I actually see a draft; the second, as I've said before, I don't think Benji's draft above quite accurately represents the tone she used in the article (although I do think it's at least a pretty good start). Apart from these, though, I'm seeing fewer and fewer potential sticking points. Rebecca (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

We were discussing 'derogatory' because you seemed to find it important. The 'leave me alone' thing is fairly stock stuff as per Jeffries re 'queer', etc. Nothing new. It is the timing that is significant. We aren;t discussing 'derogatory' any more. Mish (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The point is that Wikipedia doesn't make these kind of conclusions, and Bindel's words, and those of her critics, need to stand on their own, which is what I've been saying again and again. The only reason I've discussed the matter at all is concerns about attempts to conclude the reverse. Rebecca (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not a conclusion I am making in the draft, it is a point I am making here; if you like I am more than happy to include more about her writing on Jeffries and Dworkin from the Guardian, and her contribution to Jeffries' book, in the draft; the logical place to locate the 'not me' piece is after the protest, but in discussing this the more I am thinking it should be within the lesbian feminism section; in fact, much of writing should be within lesbian feminism, punctuated by specific items like rape, domestic violence & murder, sex work, trans, etc. The more we discuss this the clearer this becomes. Mish (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

murdering violent partners

This is Bindel's piece on murder of violent husbands:[10], as per the draft, and the response is here: [11] and here: [12]. This is focused on Harmon, as she is the minister pushing the law reform through, but the references to Bindel's connection are pretty apparent in the sources. So, this is another sub-section like the Big Brothel and transgenderism, to go alongside the more general review of her journalistic focii. Mish (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No major concerns with this, just a suggestion that some thought be given as to how these issues are organised: having long lists of "views on X issue" subsections has a tendency to be a bit of a recipe disaster, from past experience. Rebecca (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The list will not be that long when it is finished. It is settling down into a few fairly distinct areas. Maybe five or six.

sex work, (prostitution, sex tourism, human trafficking, lap dancing)

rape (rape, law reform, drug rape)

domestic violence and murder

domestic abuse and child protection

LGBT issues (Jeffries, Dworkin, lesbian, gay and transsexual)

other (Arsenal, vegetarianism, cosmetics and cosmetic surgery, gender role education, toilet arrangements, but not Barbie)

Mish (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a perfectly sensible system to me, although I find the LGBT issues heading a bit odd. Firstly, I think the sources themselves suggest that trans issues warrant a heading of their own; Bindel herself said something to the extent that it had caused the biggest outcry of anything she'd written for the Guardian (I think it was in "My trans mission", but I'm not sure about that). I'm also not sure what she's actually said about the other four topics listed under the LGBT heading, or how that quite fits in with what she's said about trans issues. If you object to trans issues having a heading of their own, a better linkage might be to throw it in with gender role education and gender-neutral toilets: at least there's more of a common thread there. Rebecca (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Gender role education would probably be better under lesbian feminism, and so too would gender-neutral toilets, so I can incorporate them into the sub-section for lesbian feminism within LGBT. The only other way would be to have separate sections for lesbian feminism and for trans issues, which leaves gay issues needing a section of its own. We then end up with more sections. It may have caused the biggest outcry at one point, but, she received more comments on rape, lesbian feminism, and both her Guardian writing and work on prostitution and domestic violence & murder have been criticised in other national papers. Mish (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Might it not make more sense to have separate subheadings for "lesbian feminism" and trans issues? I get the impression splitting them would be a more logical way of organising it, and it's likely to be a very long section if they're thrown together. Rebecca (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That is what I am doing - having a section for LGBT issues, with a subsection for lesbian feminism, a subsection for gay, and a subsection for trans issues. The only other way to do it would be to have a section for lesbian feminism, and then have trans issues as a subsection (and subsections for other writings). I see no point in treating trans as if they are separate from the other writings on identity-issues. They only feature in more depth because of the attention they have received compared to other writings on LGBT issues (as yet I have found no sources specifically on bisexuality). Mish (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

picking up mdwh comment above

I agree, I would rather have more than less, if possible, of what was actually said, because taking a the odd word here and there and cutting them together is problematic, and more might give a better perspective. People with 'odd' sexual habits and characteristics is pretty clear, and specific in the context of LGBTQQI (that is how many people still view LGBTQQI), not just trans and bisexual people, but gay, lesbian, queer and intersex identified people as well. That is the context, and the Stonewall awards protest is the background. However, others might disagree, and feel less is more, even than what is there. Mish (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got no objection to that. The problem is that it's a bit incompatible with trying to minimise the issue; if it becomes say, six paragraphs instead of three, it looks a bit ridiculous if it doesn't have its own section - and this whole mess started, in part, because people complained that it taking up a notable portion of the article would be undue weight. Rebecca (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it does look ridiculous that an issue like 'rape' gets a couple of lines, domestic violence a couple of paragraphs, sex work a couple of paragraphs, and trans takes up half the article - especially when her writing and work on domestic violence and sex work featured in other mainstream papers. The only way to deal with that is to reduce trans in some way in relation to the others. But, then that becomes a problem, because it looks as if what is happening is minimising the significance of trans. The solution of making one issue (trans) as if it were in some way in a category of its own, and thus more important than all the other things written about (rape, domestic violence, child abuse, sex work, human trafficking, murder, sex offenders, and so on) - is a very eccentric approach to such a situation. Somebody would need to ensure that the trans section is no larger than either sex work or domestic violence - I don't know I can do that, because I am too familar with the details; all I can do is document what the chain of events was, and the conclusion. I do agree now, having worked on the material, that the trans issue does need to be in its own section within her journalism, and her specific lesbian/gay writing another Mish (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

draft re-write of JB piece

I have done all I can with this for now, and the link to it is on my user page (Julie Bindel).

Because of a rather pressing matter on Violence against LGBT people I don't have much time to do much more with this right now, but would appreciate comments. It is not a complete re-write, as I have included the original unproblematic material and have expanded the coverage of her trans writing and responses, and reorganised the sections so that the coverage of her journalism more or less follows the time line involved. Getting it from the sections to there involved a fair bit of shopping around, so let me know if I missed anything obvious. I'd rather the draft in my user area was left as it is, and I can either make small changes there, or bring it here for discussion. What do people want to do about it? User:MishMich/Julie_Bindel —Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC).

This is generally very good, and I'm impressed with the job you've done after all the associated drama here. A few comments, however (mostly tinkering at the edges):

a) I'm not happy with the new quote at the bottom of the lead section. It's one opinion about Bindel, but it's not an undisputed one.

b) The labelling of Bindel's style as "tongue-in-cheek" strikes me as contestable as well. I wonder if a better term might be used.

c) I'm not thrilled with the summary of Peter Tatchell's response to Bindel; I think it makes an implication that I'm pretty sure he didn't intend. He was agreeing with Bindel in a sense about cultural expectations of gender, but he wasn't agreeing with her in the context she was using it, specifically referring to trans people. This needs to be made clearer if that first quote is to be used.

d) I think your summary of her article on gender-neutral toilets isn't really accurate - the summary makes it as if her dismissal of them was trans-related, when in that article, I really don't read that at all. She was dismissive of the idea of gender-neutral toilets; the actual bit that pertained to trans people is about the most respectful thing she's ever said on the subject.

e) The section on the "Big Brothel" report could do with a couple of little details about the report's critics. One of the listed response is that the organisation was not an academic one - but it doesn't say who the organisation was!

f) I think classifying the Bindel protest as "not mainstream organisations" is problematic, and warrants a cite if it's to be included

g) I think the chronology in that section is a little bit strange; Zoe O'Connell's quote about the protest's aims (and I have a feeling this might be taken a little bit out of context, but am not too fussed either way) is below Bindel's later article about the issue, and it goes back and forth in time a bit

h) The journalism section, as it is, takes up more than half the article; I think this really needs to be broken up into sections somehow, however you go about it.

All of this said, though, while I've quibbled about a few things, you've done a damned good job. Rebecca (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, it took quite a bit of work.

• a) That is in the original version, so I left it in - you can debate that later. It is clear it is the Guardian's opinion, not ours, and so shouldn't be problem regarding NPOV.

• b) lost it

• c) Tatchell agrees with Bindel about gender, but does not believe that dogma should override personal choice or freedom. He acknowledges that people do seem to benefit from treatments. I'll have another look though. Had a look, and these are direct quotes from him, and represent his position pretty accurately.

• d) I have moved the toilets out of the section, and lost the TG reference

• e) It was conducted by the POPPY project, which is detailed in the text, but I will clarify this.

• f) Hmmm. Tricky one, no mainstream organizations were involved, but we need a quote to verify that? Can we verify a negative? No, I removed it.

• g) Yes, because Zoe's quote about the protest was in response to Bindel's comments about the protest in her article, not the protest. If there is a bit of jumping about, it is because I tried to keep the themes together as much as possible while losing the sections.

• h) I think it worked better that way for a very simple reason. That way it covered the contentious issue pretty thoroughly, but without it dominating the section or the article. I have broken it back down into sections, and it takes up nearly half the section and dominates other items that are just as significant. It has to do that in order to convey what the 'fuss' was all about. Have a look at it now and see what you think. Mish (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that you've gone and put it into sections, I think you were right before; it flows quite a bit better chronologically, and it looks less arbitrary in that format.

As far as the lead quote goes, it might be in the current version, but it shouldn't be in the revised version. It's an opinion; the fact that it selects a highly positive quote from The Guardian, over other possible viewpoints, is POV. It might warrant mentioning if there were some sort of "views" section, but as a general, neutral summary in the lead - it just isn't.

The quotes from Tatchell are accurate, but the problem is in the segue between the two statements. Tatchell agrees with Bindel about gender generally (what feminist doesn't?), but the whole relevance of that issue to the Hecklers debate was Bindel's opinion that transsexualism exists because of that social pressure. The wording of that sentence basically implies that he agreed with that contention, but thought that Bindel was a bit harsh - which is in no way what he actually meant.

There's one other small issue I noticed on re-reading it: the sentence on The Guardian's complaints qualifies this with ..."from transsexual people, doctors, therapists, academics and others". The actual quoted sentence in context basically just states that concern was not limited to the trans community; the slight change in wording here switches the meaning to imply that concern was limited to the trans community or people with a professional interest in them. There's no need for the qualifier - listing the number of complaints is sufficient. Rebecca (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I put:

On his website, Tatchell endorsed Bindel’s criticism of “traditional male and female roles and the social pressure to conform to cultural expectations of how men and women are supposed to behave,” recognising these as “often profoundly oppressive.” But he criticises her for “putting gender theory and ideology before the happiness of individual human beings who feel out of place and unhappy in their birth sex.”

Tatchell's site:

endorses Ms Bindel’s criticism of “traditional male and female roles and the social pressure to conform to cultural expectations of how men and women are supposed to behave,” describing these as “often profoundly oppressive.” But he goes on to criticise Julie for “putting gender theory and ideology before the happiness of individual human beings who feel out of place and unhappy in their birth sex.”

Now, I can't see that there is any substantive difference between there Mish (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have dealt with all the issues raised I am able to, and re-written bits here and there that I noticed along the way, mainly for accuracy and readability in some places. Concerning the allegations of the 27 academics that the research was funded by the Home Office via the POPPY project, and was academically flawed. Apparently the POPPY Project is taking legal action against the assertion that its research was flawed and that the POPPY project is funded by central government to do research and lobbying. It is not. I am not sure where that leaves us in relation to repeating this in this article. Mish (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Bias

You'd think someone on record saying all men should be put in camps would have at least one critical remark about her on the article. Then again, Wikipedia isn't exactly ethical in regards to the standards it places on feminist articles.

Categories

I removed Category:Familicide. All the other entries are people who killed their families, which I don't remember Bindel having done. Fences and windows (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Mish (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

archived

As new content has replaced the old thus mooting the previous discussions I've moved them to the archives. good work everyone - especially Mish! -- Banjeboi 04:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

thank you

As it has been nearly a month and the article appears to have settled, I'd like to thank everybody involved in contributing to this article. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

One small gripe on another reading through - I'm not sure that the description of Erin Pizzey under "domestic and violence and murder" represents where she sits all that well. On following the source out of curiosity as to what her objections were, I was a little bit surprised to find an extended rant about feminists and left-wingers. Rebecca (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem is source:- Pizzey - founder of women's refuge movement, and opponent of radical feminist involvement in women's refuges. Daily Mail - right wing national newspaper known for its diatribes against the left, feminism, LGBT. So, Pizzey was vocal about Harman's proposed legislation and Bindel's supposed influence - Bindel being a political lesbian and radical feminist (by self definition), and Harman being a radical feminist (supposedly). Other's also discussed this, such as the Telegraph (politically right of centre) [13]; there is a report in the Sun [14] which is surprisingly balanced for that tabloid (not normally an ideal source), and the BBC has a link to the 'Women's Hour' program where this was discussed. The Gurdian also ran a piece [15], not by Bindel herself. The Pizzey piece in the Mail is explicit about Bindel's involvement, the other's aren't (although Bindel has been banging on about this for years). Mish (just an editor) (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Dating conflict created by recent edit

A recent edit by MishMich (talk · contribs) resulted in the following, in relevant part: "In autumn 2008 Bindel was nominated for the [...] "Journalist of the year" award. [....] There was a picket of the awards ceremony on April 6 2008 [....]" If the awards ceremony was in April of 2008, clearly the nomination must have come before that, but "autumn 2008" is after April 2008 in the northern hemisphere where these events took place. The text changed had the ceremony date as November 2008, but as I have no idea which data are correct, I figured I should just point out the conflict to those of you who know the topic better. --Geoff Capp (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it should have been November. Mish (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV issues still

I think the article still has NPOV issues and I'm going to tag it as such. The problem is the overall tone, which is generally laudatory to Bindel. Probably some more neutral phrasing of statements would help here. (Example: "Bindel helped educate on the issues of cyberstalking". Phrasing like that is a not-so-subtle endorsement of her views.) Also, a question of balance – it seems like views critical of her are barely given space, then followed by a lengthy "rebuttal" from Bindel's POV. That content should be in here, but the weighting of it is unbalanced, making the article lean toward a defense of Bindel's views.

Also, her involvement along with Sheila Jeffreys in the Leeds Revolutionary Feminist group is not mentioned at all. This was an extremely radical separatist group which set the stage for many of her present controversial views. The description here seems to treat her early activism as basically mainstream anti-violence/anti-rape activism. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(As an aside, Leeds Revolutionary Feminists and related groups were groups of some not-small historical importance, and there was even a BBC program on them. An article on British Revolutionary Feminism should definitely be added at some point.) Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, note this sentence concerning the article "Why I Hate Men": "Men, violence, and the way men relate to women has featured in articles where she has written about men, and discussed what is revealed in their comments about her writing." This is total sugar-coating of a very controversial thesis here. Now in the section covering Bindel's views of transgendered people, there is clear awareness that her views are controversial. So why are her views on men treated with kid gloves? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I have reworded those two, and removed the tag that was applied to one. I could not find up any material in WP:RS on her time in Leeds, not relating to her and Jeffreys. If you have some material that is relevant, noteworthy and from a reliable source, feel free to bring it here, explain what you see as worth inserting, and let's have a look at it. Then we can remove the tag you placed, as all the other points have been covered now. Mish (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll work on it over the next few days.

As for reliable sources for Bindel's Leeds Revoutionary Feminist connections, she discusses it in one her columns [16], The BBC program "Lefties: Angry Wimmin" covers this group and her membership in it, and a Google Books and Google Scholar search for "Julie Bindel" and "Leeds Revolutionary Feminist" turns up several academic sources. (A few of these I'll have to take a trip to the library for.) I think the "noteworthiness" of her activities with this group in a biography of Bindel is self-evident. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll want a copy of All the rage: reasserting radical lesbian feminism.[17] Fences&Windows 20:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep – that's one of the sources I had in mind. I'll probably have to go over to UC Berkeley to look at it in full. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What is happening about this? I attended to what was asked, and have waited over six months for the other material. Removing tag, as it serves no purpose. Mish (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed revision of biography for Julie Bindel

Below is the revision of the entry for Bindel, complete, incorporating the existing entry and expanded. Benji and Rebecca have both looked and made comments/changes (or had them made by me). Bearing in mind nothing will ever please everyone, I would like to propose we replace the existing entry. I have asked Julie Bindel to look at it, and she suggested one or two minor factual changes, and pointed out that there is pending legal action relating to the Big Brothel report, so I have removed the two allegations that are covered by this. Her only comment of the trans issue was that it is too long. I agree, but felt that this was the only way to gain a 'fair' representation of events. I am happy to work on reducing that section, as long as cutting it does not inadvertantly introduce any bias one way or the other. Provided nobody has any objections, I would like to replace the whole thing, although I am also happy to replace all the other sections, leaving the trans section as it is for now, work on the trans section here, and then replace the existing section with one arrived at through consensus. Mish (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The quote in the lead is still there, and it's still unacceptable. It's a laudatory quote on a controversial figure being used as summary. Beyond that, I don't have any outstanding problems with the draft.

However, for transparency's sake, I would like to know what changes were made at Bindel's request. Rebecca (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

She didn't go to Leeds University when she was younger, she was involved in activism, and went to Leeds Metropolitan later in life, which going by her papers from there puts that in the 90's. And she didn't get involved in activism because of Sutcliffe, but because of her involvement with activists involved in the campaign that developed in response to Sutcliffe. I had a look at the source, and you can read it either way. Apart from the allegations that 'Big Brothel' was funded by central government and that it was academically flawed, that's it. If somebody else wants them back in, that's fine, as long as I don't put them back in, and as long as the appropriate part of the refutation by POPPY is also put back in as well. That was it, nothing major. Mish (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the full quote, and it is not what was there before "The Yorkshire Ripper case was my reason for becoming a campaigner against sexual violence", which is nothing like "Bindel cites Peter Sutcliffe [...] as her reason for becoming a campaigner against sexual violence." What she says is situated within a discussion about feminist activism around the case, and how Bindel became involved in the activism, and from there an activist for women's rights.

I'm not really that fussed about the Guardian quote, although it does come from the Mayes piece quoted elsewhere - perhaps it should be moved to coincide with his comments about the GBB article instead? I think that the editor's estimation of one of his paper's journalists is appropriate for the lead, especially as it is a quote expressing his opinion, rather than an opinion any of us are making. She is extraordinary, if not for managing to upset people in the way she has, so that five years on we are still discussing this. Mish (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It becomes an opinion that we are making when, of all the quotes about a controversial figure that we could use, we use a laudatory one by her employer. That's not a neutral decision; that's a pointed choice to choose a particularly favourable quote and use it as summary. As a laudatory opinion, if that goes in, we need to use a negative quote as well to maintain NPOV. This is opposed to a quote like Bindel's own "Marmite writer" one, which is actually neutral, fairly indisputable, and actually does refer to her "managing to upset people". Rebecca (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it into the body of text, in the context of Mayes' other comments from the same item. Mish (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, don't tell the folks over at Martin Luther King Jr. about this - he is described as a Saint of two churches. I tried to point out that neither the Anglican or Lutheran churches have made anybody a saint since the reformation, as they have no canonization proceedure, but they won't have it, even though it says so quite clearly on our own page about Anglican Saints. Maybe I'll turn around an RfC on the matter. Mish (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help, Rebecca and Benji, can I take it that there are no further substantive objections in principle to using this draft to replace the existing page? We may want to discuss reducing some of the material in the trans section (or not), but I'm not sure that is an issue if we agree that what is there at the moment can go forward. If so, should we request that protection be lifted, or ask the admin to review and insert the new draft? Mish (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, no problems here. I'd just ask for the protection to be lifted. Rebecca (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the draft to the article page, replacing the earlier version. I have relocated the draft to save space Talk:Julie Bindel/JB new The old version is here Talk:Julie Bindel/JB old for reference. Mish (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the trans section is well written and useful, and therefore request that it not be reduced. Rubywine (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Academic career

The article needs to make clear what Bindel studied as an undergraduate at Leeds Metropolitan University, and whether or not she actually graduated. I have removed several mentions of 'academia' in the article, because I have tried and failed to find any confirmation that Bindel ever graduated, I have read several positive assertions that she is not an academic, and because the quality of her research has been strongly criticised by academics. Rubywine (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The details of her time in academia, indeed much of her career before the late 1990s, is unclear. But that is not be unexpected in a figure who only became widely notable after 2000. The sources may not be clear about her qualifucations, but they are clear that she was a researcher at two universities, and at one point an assistant director at one. So, I have replaced 'researcher' where academic was used. Her focus did shift to academia, in continuance of her feminist activism into research - but I have not restored that bit, as it isn't really necessary to state this as it is obvious in the text. The sources for this are: Leeds [18][19][20], London [21][22][23][24][25][26]. Mish (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Bindel's research was conducted at institutions which had recently acquired university status. She was an assistant research director at Leeds Metropolitan in the mid-90s; Leeds Metropolitan only acquired university status in 1992. As recently as 2008, both universities had extremely low research rankings (London Metropolitan 107th out of 132; Leeds Metropolitan 81st out of 113). I therefore see no reason to assume anything about Bindel's academic qualifications. Rubywine (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is assumed about her qualifications. - MishMich - Talk - 00:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I was replying to your comments that Bindel's focus shifted to academia, and that you had not bothered to restore that bit because it is obvious. I disagree that it is obvious, because in British universities, the term 'academia' is only used to refer to post-graduate teaching and research.

The following information is purely for the record. I am not proposing to amend this article further as yet. But having examined the bibliography and chased up the academic references, I find no evidence to suggest that at Leeds Metropolitan, Julie Bindel was in reality anything more than a part time research assistant to Professor Liz Kelly. Bindel produced one information pack and two press packs, and contributed some data collection and a short report towards one of the only two real academic publications on which her name appears. There is no suggestion anywhere that Bindel may have been engaged in personal postgraduate research.

I have just had to correct the reference to the first of the two publications. Professor Kelly was very clearly the primary author and team leader (http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors193.pdf) but her name had been completely omitted! Bindel's contribution to the second and shorter publication is unstated, but Kelly was the sole co-author. Rubywine (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm stepping this up. I can find no supporting evidence for the claim that Bindel was the assistant director of the research unit on violence and abuse at Leeds Metropolitan, or that she directed or led any research at that university. All the results on Google are identical to the Wikipedia content, so Wikipedia appears to be the primary source. The only evidence available gives the strong impression that in fact, Bindel was a part time research assistant to Liz Kelly, the director of the research unit. An entirely different role. So I have decided to add a 'citation needed' tag to the article. Rubywine (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)