Talk:Meghan Murphy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Choise of wording in last sentence[edit]

The last sentence of the article goes; On several occasions since August 2018, Murphy has been suspended from Twitter and asked to delete certain tweets about transgender issues that violated it's hateful conduct policy.[38].

I have re-read the line a few times to be sure that I did not misinterpret it, as I reacted on the by me bolded word "hateful" describing Twitter's conduct policy, wherefore I wonder if it is the wording of Meghan or the wording of the writer of the article? If by Meghan, it should be within quotation or explained that it is her description of the policy. If however it is the choise of the creator of the article, then I believe it falls under weasel wording which would then make the word "hateful" inappropriate, as it goes against the neutral tone that should be kept in articles free from personal bias of the writer.

Sincerely - Okama-San (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, it's actually not Meghan or the person who edited it in, it's the wording twitters rules use to describe the specific section of the rules that she broke.ShimonChai (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


Yes, I realized that just yesterday after having gotten to bed, ugh. >.< I wish I could erase the post as it is a bit embarrassing in retrospect now, but, that's life. :P

Sincerely - Okama-San (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Tagging of first sentence[edit]

There's some pretty ugly tagging in the first sentence currently, due to an edit I made. I apologize for the cosmetics of it, but hopefully it won't last long, and the fact that it looks so gross will motivate its rapid repair. The problem was, that you had three references at the end of what is supposed to be the definition, and single most important sentence in the article, and none of the references support the statement made; they are all trivial mentions of Murphy, in articles about something else. I tagged them all {{failed verification}} for the lack of support, and {{better source}} for the need to have something more than just a tangential, trivial mention of Murphy. That makes for a horrible-looking first sentence, I'll admit. If someone wants to come along and just remove all three references, and all six tags completely, and replace it with one {{citation needed}}, I won't object. But those references really should not be there. Mathglot (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

First, I agree that none of them properly cite the first sentence due to the contents of the citations not being in the citation given. To fall inline with citations given:

"Meghan Emily Murphy is a Canadian writer, and founder of Feminist Current, a feminist blog and podcast" (Note, this is just based on those citations given, not citations throughout the entire article.) Though, I disagree on the trivial part, The Globe and Mail as far as I know is reliable, and so is The New York Times, furthermore I couldn't find any ruling on "trivial" mentions disqualifying a citation from being used in either the better source template, nor in WP:NOTRS. ShimonChai (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi ShimonChai, and thanks for your comments. G&M and NYT are both highly reliable sources, and AJ too, there is no question about that, but that's not the issue here. There's a statement about trivial mention somehwere; I'll try and find it. But basically, these all contain quotations by Murphy about some extraneous topic, and are not about her in any meaningful way, other than to identify who she is.
  • I.e., in the G&M article about sexism in the workplace, several experts are queried, and each of the three have a one-sentence reply to the question, which is quoted, and they are each identified by name, position, and publication. They are quoting her own words, so it's WP:PRIMARY, and it's not clear whether they asked the respondents for their title, or simply looked it up on the web, in which case they are quoting a self-published source. This identification is barely more than some commenters provide in the Letters column at G&M (e.g., "Hilary Pearson", here). I'm not saying this absolutely cannot be used if there is nothing better, but it's a trivial mention of her position (the article is about something else) which description most likely comes from asking her, or looking at the blog.
  • The NYT article is about Hugh Hefner, and contains one sentence, again by Megan Murphy, not written by others about her.
  • The third reference is an interview with a Bangladeshi microfinance banker and Nobel prize winner, opining about responsibility for violence in Burma. This article has nothing to do with feminist politics. After the end of the interview with Yunus, there is a follow-up section with a teaser for the publication's weekly "Arena" column, and includes one sentence of quoting Murphy's opinion on the subject of this other column; again, this is a statement by her, not about her. She is identified, as any opinion source would be.
If these three articles, none of which are about Murphy in any substantial way beyond a trivial identification are the very best that can be done to verify the first sentence of the article, then it would be reasonable for someone to question whether Murphy is even notable enough to have an article. However, I don't believe there is a question about notability. That being the case, surely stronger references than these must exist. A truly secondary source, might be a G&M or NYT article about "opinion-shapers in radical feminism", where people (not employed or connected with Feminist Current) talk about Murphy perhaps comparing her to other writers, perhaps going into some analysis or evaluation of this generation of feminist opinion makers, or just anything, more than simply identifying her by name and position. That would be a substantive, independent, secondary source, which these three, imho, do not seem to be. I will try to find the "trivial mention" statement if I can, but even if I can't, surely we can do better than this. These sources are very weak on a number of accounts. (I'm still not bothered if someone just deletes all of them, and am tempted to do so myself, but would be better if someone else did.) Mathglot (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
So, it turns out "trivial mention" is connected with Notability, not referencing. It is found in the first sentence in the section on significant coverage. There is also the essay, WP:Trivial mentions. So my objection to those references would have to be cast in some other way, than citing "trivial mention". I still think they're weak, but I'll have to find the right policy for it. Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
No volunteers so far, so went ahead and removed the references, and tagged the first sentence as {{cn}}. Mathglot (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

First sentence description TERF vs radical feminist[edit]

An IP editor adjusted the first sentence of the article to read "Meghan Emily Murphy is a Canadian writer, journalist, and founder of Feminist Current, a trans-exclusionary radical feminist blog and podcast." The term TERF was just a piped link to the general page for "radical feminism" (as the article had previously linked). While it seems to me that the subject of this article is perhaps best known for her opposition to transgender rights, this edit seemed like an NPOV issue to me, since TERF is not a label of self-identification, but one applied by others who disagree with them. To be clear, I think given the prominence of this part of her politics, some mention of her stance would make sense in the introduction, but this exact wording did not seem the way to go about this, and particularly not via a piped link. Any thoughts on this? --Sauzer (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Those who accuse Murphy of being a "TERF" and persist on inserting the offensive term into the article are activist editors. However, 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. As a WP:BLP, every statement about her must be supported by reliable sources. And yes, injecting "TERF" or "trans-exclusionary" into the biography is a violation of WP:NPOV. Pyxis Solitary yak 06:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
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.
The article has two components: how Meghan Murphy is a radical feminist and how she excludes trans people. It is inaccurate _not_ to refer to her as a TERF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.232.202.112 (talkcontribs) 15:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
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.
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. Thanks! -- (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Jiminy Cricket, what a mess all of this is.[1][2][3][4]. No wonder my sister dropped out of the drama. Jiminy Cricket, what a peculiar IP this is.[5]. I hope my sister has a CU run on it. Pyxis Solitary hasn't called herself a TERF. She says, "I am a Lesbian. I'm not Gay. I'm not Bisexual. I'm not Pansexual. I'm not Transgender. I'm not Transexual. I'm not Non-binary. I'm not Bigender. I'm not Skoliosexual. I am a homosexual female and the only thing fluid about me is blood, sweat, tears, and piss." 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.
You figure you're gonna be able to get Pyxis Solitary blocked or topic banned for objecting to the WP:LABEL of "TERF" being used to describe BLP subjects who object to the term, and for using the description "trans ideology" on the talk page? Uhhh, okay. Someone better look to penalize BBC News and The Times for using the terminology too.[6][7]. Ah, but I mustn't forget. Our Wikipedia articles say that the evil TERF people are apparently very powerful in the UK. There also exists all those articles criticizing Jessica Yaniv and how Yaniv is questionably extending what trans rights entail, but that ain't nothing, I guess. Editors can't even achieve a consensus to categorize people as "climate change deniers" (a widely used term for a certain sector) because of "pejorative" arguments. Ah, but if there were a similar debate there on "TERF," most of the people there would support categorizing people as TERFs. Good luck with that.
You'll be lookin' to get Aeusoes1, EllsworthSK, Crossroads1, and Rhinocera blocked or topic banned for having different view points too, huh? Good luck with that.
There's somethin' else I think I wanted to say. Yessss, that's right. To save Fæ the trouble of snooping into my account, my sister is Flyer22 Reborn. Threaten me if ya like. Throw the DS on my talk page. Leave my sister out of it. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I never referred to the "tears and piss" quote when I said that Pyxis Solitary self-identified as a TERF. You chose to defend that quote because _you yourself_ thought it was TERFy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.232.202.112 (talkcontribs) 19:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Excellent spin logic there, anon. Explain why you said she identified as a TERF then, if it wasn't for the reason I highlighted higher up and on my talk page?[8] If I didn't know of how particular folks use the term, I wouldn't be someone to think of "non-trans lesbian" (or "non-trans lesbian who ain't into trans women") and "TERF" as the same darn thing. Just because I know why you said she identifies as a TERF doesn't mean I agree with ya. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
"Some of y'all call any lesbian a TERF", no, the only person publishing homophobic comments here is you. This puts you in conflict with the Arbcom discretionary sanctions, because you are (apparently) either trolling or making jokes at the expense of the LGBT+ community. Your behaviour here is offensive and disruptive and may cause distress to other editors, including those you are claiming to "defend" but are in practice canvassing to stir up dramah. I suggest you desist, preferably by taking this page off your watchlist. Thanks!
For anyone confused about the sources linked in the above comment, the BBC has never stated that a trans ideology exists, the link given discusses some offensive anti-trans slurs from "Fair Play for Women", an extremist anti-trans lobbyist group that has a long history of misgendering and attacking trans women on Twitter and attempting to remove any trans rights or equality legislation. Similarly the Times link is not a piece of Times journalism but an anti-trans lobbyist letter, with all recognisable names being those that are known to publish and support extreme anti-trans rhetoric. These are not sources that illuminate a Wikipedia article, apart from demonstrating TERF extremist views. -- (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Man, now you want to claim that pinging people is canvassing after you voted against that viewpoint, and following your viewpoints about Twitter and all that jazz? You claim I'm publishing homophobic comments. So the anon who is spitting homophobic garbage about how Pyxis Solitary is a TERF for saying "I am a Lesbian. I'm not Gay. I'm not Bisexual. I'm not Pansexual. I'm not Transgender. I'm not Transexual. I'm not Non-binary. I'm not Bigender. I'm not Skoliosexual. I am a homosexual female and the only thing fluid about me is blood, sweat, tears, and piss." isn't? The anon read between the lines to see that Pyxis Solitary is a non-trans lesbian woman who isn't into trans women, and the anon called her a TERF for it. 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. The IP is spitting the same garbage (excuse me, utter shit) seen on Tumblr and other corners of the web where a lesbian can't even say she's a lesbian and is only sexually attracted to non-trans women without being called transphobic or a TERF for it. Do you think people should fake or try to unlearn their sexual attraction for the sake of inclusivity? Where are all the gay men being called TERFs for not being into trans men? Ah, but I mustn't forget. Trans men usually don't pull the "you're transphobic if you ain't into me" shit. Gay men, heterosexual men and heterosexual women aren't usually called "TERFs." The "TERF" crap is mainly aimed at lesbians. Coincidence? You put the forth the argument that my "behaviour here is offensive and disruptive and may cause distress to other editors." Look in the mirror! That's how some of the editors you keep disparaging feel. You've disparaged at the "TERF" page.[9] You've disparaged at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.[10]. You've disparaged at the "Feminist views on transgender topics" page.[11] Your topic ban should be reinstated.
Even trans folks use the terminology "trans ideology." They are using it right now to describe the disturbing behavior of Jessica Yaniv. Thank you, YouTube. Thank the heavens for the trans people calling Yaniv out. Yaniv is doing more damage to trans people than Meghan Murphy has ever done.
Wanting our BLPs to follow policy ain't looking to stir up dramah. Playing the victim, a known trait of yours (and mentioned by Sitush before), is. Your scare tactics and attempts at intimidation won't work on me. You went to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment to further your bullying cause. I went to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists to put a stop to the insanity. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Could we at least try to resist the slide into one-on-one namecalling and insults, which is fully contrary to CIVIL and is particularly inappropriate in a discretionary sanctions area? Halo Jerk1, WP's treatment of ideological labels does not run parallel to the treatment of sexualities and religious identities, and for you to pretend that it does or should is just unhelpful. Also, whatever your feelings are about the Jessica Yaniv case (and why you have such intense feelings about it, given your own professed identities and pronouns, I have no idea), it seems pretty clear to me that your gratuitous characterization of her behaviour as "disturbing" is signalling a BIAS that really ought to disqualify you from editing this page per BLPCOI. Also, pretending that the TERF wars are putting "lesbians" against "trans activists" shows zero recognition of the complexity of the actual queer politics of the situation, which is much more complex and nuances (e.g., most queer women in Canada aren't on the side you're calling "lesbian"), as our WP articles must also try to be. Newimpartial (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Cursing is not necessarily uncivil. I can cut back on the cursing. However, it's peculiar that you talk about me being uncivil, given the many, many times Fæ has been uncivil. You never call out Fæ's incivility. It's always someone else doing the calling out. I don't understand what you mean when you say "WP's treatment of ideological labels does not run parallel to the treatment of sexualities and religious identities, and for you to pretend that it does or should is just unhelpful." WP:LABEL is WP:LABEL. WP:YESPOV is WP:YESPOV. As for Jessica Yaniv, she is all in the news. Please don't characterize my concerns to be about Jessica Yaniv. However, Yaniv is a part of this case. The Wikipedia page not mentioning her name doesn't make that any less so. I don't understand what you think my own "professed identities and pronouns" has to do with anything. All you know is that I am male. I know you aren't saying that a man, non-trans or trans, can't comment on this topic. If you are, tough. There are trans people who seriously doubt that Yaniv is actually trans. Also, Yaniv's behavior is disturbing. You calling that description "gratuitous" is ridiculous. You know what behavior I'm talkin' about, and I ain't gonna elaborate so that you can cry "BLP violation." As for "pretending that the TERF wars are putting 'lesbians' against 'trans activists"? You like to ignore reliable sources, I know that. I've seen you. The reliable sources commenting on it can't all be characterized as "TERF sources" unless you are using "TERF" as a synonym for "lesbian." I agree that the topic "is much more complex" with "nuances." It's also concerns a rift between lesbians and trans women. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I am familiar enough with the BC hair removal case, and it does not at all fit the characterization you have offered of "TERF""Trans" vs. "lesbian". Also, I am not saying that men are in no position to comment, but the degree of passion you are bringing to this discussion reminds me of non-feminist "gender critical" ideology more than it does anything else, and that perspective has not proved helpful in other discussions of trans-related articles that I've seen. As far as LABEL is concerned, it has a specific carve-out for labels that are consistently used by RS, and please take a look at BLP - our actual policy in this area which distinguishes between religious and sexuality labels (with a high standard of verification) and other cases, including political and ideological labels. Newimpartial (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be reading a page in a parallel universe where I said that the Yaniv case is about "TERF" vs. "lesbian." Are there reliable sources that criticize Yaniv having had the ability to shut down Murphy? Yep. Are there reliable sources that criticize trans women shutting down the voice of lesbians? Yep. However, those are all TERF sources to you, even when they are just lesbians talking about their right to speak on their sexuality (including not being sexually attracted to trans women). Any opposition to your viewpoints reminds you of non-feminist "gender critical" ideology more than it does anything else. I've noticed that. You are wrong about WP:LABEL. And don't forget about WP:YESPOV. The only passion I have in this dispute is to see the misuse of guidelines and policies, with opinions pieces, and the bullying, end. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Halo Jerk1, you accuse me of reading parallel universe discussions about "TERF" versus "Lesbian" and then in the same paragraph you say "those are all TERF sources to you, even when they are just lesbians ..." I undoubtedly phrased myself in a confusing way (since corrected) but that is exactly what I was talking about. Take away the gaslighting from your last comments, and here are my points responding to what is left:
  • I haven't dismissed any sources as "TERF sources" or any writers as "TERFS", at any time.
  • I haven't said or implied that everyone I disagree with carries a non-feminist gender critical ideology; above, I was explaining why identities like feminist, male and for that matter cis seem relevant to me in this discussion.
  • I am saying that "Trans" vs. "Lesbian" is a false dichotomy (e.g. most Canadian organizations for lesbians are trans-inclusionary).
  • I am also saying that "TERF" and "Lesbian" are non-synonymous terms; most Lesbians aren't TERFs and many TERFs aren't lesbians.
  • LABEL requires that controversial terms be consistently used and that RS be available to show their use; I am not convinced that TERF is controversial in that sense, but I also made sure I had the RS citations in hand before restoring the term.
Please refrain from the mind reading / gaslighting and the ASPERSIONS, and don't equate criticism of the BC hair removal complaintant with "trans women shutting down lesbians" discourse, and this night go somewhat better for all participants. Newimpartial (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The way you edit trans or trans-related articles and argue on these talk pages speak louder than any truthful admission on your part. So does your twisting of words, since I didn't "equate criticism of the BC hair removal complaintant with 'trans women shutting down lesbians' discourse." It's good that you mentioned Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, mind reading, and gaslighting. Your and Fæ's aspersions, mind reading, and gaslighting are boring and need to stop. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
You said, and I quote "Are there reliable sources that criticize Yaniv having had the ability to shut down Murphy? Yep. Are there reliable sources that criticize trans women shutting down the voice of lesbians? Yep." I see that as "equating" the two things, and that's what I called it. If you meant something else, then please explain, but I wasn't twisting your words. I haven't done any mind reading or gaslighting, as you repeatedly did above when you repeatedly attributed to me opinions I don't hold and described me as making arguments I have never made. I would appreciate your not doing that, per CIVIL (which is actually a policy). Also, please don't lump me in with Fae; so far I have managed not to mix you in with any other editor. Newimpartial (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
What you see is often through a distorted lens. For example, "'Trans' vs. 'Lesbian' is a false dichotomy (e.g. most Canadian organizations for lesbians are trans-inclusionary)."? No, it ain't. Do you think people can't Google? The rift is real, and many reliable sources talk about it. It also depends on what you mean by "trans-inclusionary," because if you mean that most lesbians are open to dating trans women, the little data on that does not support that statement. I know you like to use Canada to represent the world, but stop it. You've repeatedly engaged in mind reading and gaslighting. I'm not going to quote the instances. I know you like to debate, and debate, and debate, debate, and debate, and debate. You live for this. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
By "trans-inclusionary" in the context of feminism I mean "inclusive of Trans women in women-designated spaces", which I take to be the conventional definition. In Canada this is the stance of most lgbt2sq organizations and also happens to be the state of the law as well. Neither these organizations nor the law take a position about who individual lesbians should date (and neither do I), and neither should you or any man IMO.
And by the way, I do not live for debate: I live for drugs. Newimpartial (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
It didn't seem like you were talking about "in the context of feminism" with that previous "trans' vs. 'lesbian' is a false dichotomy (e.g. most Canadian organizations for lesbians are trans-inclusionary)" bit. And I don't wanna hear about "in Canada."
Unlike some, I defend people's right to date who they want to date. If a person is shamed or called transphobic for not wanting to date a trans person, as some are (a fact that even some trans people talk about), I'm going to stand up for that person's right to say no or "I'm not sexually attracted to trans people." The rights of people should concern everyone. Since some trans women are sexually attracted to men, and some trans folks are in my life, that's another reason it concerns me. I'm not disqualified on speaking on these issues or supporting a woman's right to date who she wants because I'm a man. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Fae, you may not know about it, or not acknowledge it, but lesbians being discriminated against and harassed by transgender activists, for their exclusively same-sex sexual orientation, is a very real phenomenon. AfterEllen has published about this. (And has predictably received a torrent of hatred for it.) I know several lesbian bloggers/activists/etc. from around the webosphere who report the same experience. See also the Lesbians at Ground Zero report from the Get The L Out project, or read the works of Sister Outrider for a black lesbian perspective on the phenomenon.
That being said, I wish we could all return to focusing on the content of the article. Wikipedia using the term "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" to describe anyone is unacceptable when the very nature of the term is subject to a large public debate, and no reliable sources can pin down exactly what it means without another, equally reliable source contradicting it.
Rhino (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Rhino, Fæ knows that, but Fæ likes to pretend that evil lesbians are pulling these experiences/disgusting accounts out of their asses. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The goal here (focus on content) is laudable, Rhino, but the both-sidesism you are promoting about these issues is troubling. There are not two equal sides about the term TERF or about Trans-exclusion, within feminism or queer politics. There is a trans-inclusive majority and there is a minority of feminists (often but not always lesbian feminists) that oppose trans-inclusion and ally with non-feminists (often cultural conservatives) to do so. This is the world the RS describe, and so - until that world itself chances, according to the sources - this is the world we are bound to depict in articles. FALSEBALANCE and IDONTHEARTHAT won't help us achieve this. Newimpartial (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
This seems to be your opinion (and that of other editors here who promote transgender activism), but not reflected by reliable sources like you claim. Rhino (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
It is the conclusion one reaches from the sources cited in the article. As most of the sources you have cited offering "alternative perspectives" are written by the subject of this article, or don't bear on the subject at all, I think we need to let the sources speak rather than personal POV. Newimpartial (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
"most of the sources you have cited offering "alternative perspectives" are written by the subject of this article, or don't bear on the subject at all" -- That's wrong, please take another look. Many reliable sources explain how "TERF" is a very contentious term. Rhino (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you could link to one of the articles in question that is not written by this article's subject, that is not an op-ed, and that actually spells out reasoned grounds to interptet TERF as a slur (or even a "very contentious term", which they say about what supremacist also and yet we use the term in WP's voice when RS do so). Because I found zero of your "greatest hits" list that meets these criteria. Newimpartial (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I've re-categorized the links in my user page earlier today, so you might want to check it again now. The unpartisan news article on Inside Higher Ed mentions that "TERF" is contentious, the Morning Star piece shows that major voices on the British left agree, and various opinion pieces on highly RS pages like The Guardian and New Statesman provide the "reasoned grounds to interpret TERF as a slur" which you are looking for. None of them are written by Meghan Murphy or quote her. But I've already linked these to you before, haven't I? Rhino (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Rhinocera: FYI, a reliable source where scholars describe "TERF" as "a slur and at best derogatory" and object to its use: "Derogatory Language in Philosophy Journal Risks Increased Hostility and Diminished Discussion (guest post) (Update: Response from Editors)". Justin Weinberg (August 27, 2018), Daily Nous. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, added to my list. :-) Rhino (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
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.
#1 WP:NPA:  "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans."  You can read the rest in the policy.
#2 This article is a WP:BLP:  "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement....The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism...does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times...contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion...Avoid repeating gossip...Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources...BLPs should simply document what [reliable] sources say."  You can read the rest in the policy.
You think I should be banned from editing this page because I oppose the injecting of "TERF" into the BLP without reliable sources that describe her as a "TERF"? Because I enforce WP:NPV:  "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Avoid stating facts as opinions. Prefer nonjudgmental language."?
You think I should be banned from editing this BLP because I identify as a Lesbian and homosexual female? Go ahead. File a complaint against me. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The consensus on Wikipedia is that "While these feminists perceive the term to be a slur, mainstream feminists, other academics, and trans people have rejected this view.". It's not derogatory, it's descriptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.232.202.112 (talkcontribs) 13:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
You stated above that "she's against trans ideology", do you withdraw your claim that trans women are part of a "trans ideology" or that a "trans ideology" exists?
Using Wikipedia to promulgate damaging false claims about trans women is a problem, because your words on this page are in conflict with Arbcom discretionary sanctions. Any search for sources shows that it is only anti-trans lobbyists that promote a myth of a "trans ideology", and Wikipedia is not an open forum where transphobic or homophobic lobbyists are free to spam hostile attacks. Thanks! -- (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
"By the way, Pyxis Solitary, there is no such thing as "trans ideology"." You have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. What I've found in: The American Spectator, The Times, New York Magazine, The Economist, The Herald, The Australian, Las Vegas Review-Journal, The Federalist, BBC News, Public Discourse, The Fifth Column, Spiked, First Things, The College Fix, The Bridgehead, Redline, Anglican Mainstream, Medium, Counter-Currents Publishing, Disclose.tv, Julie Bindel, etc. etc. etc., say otherwise.
You want to bring up alerts? How about this one: "Canvassing insinuation: Re your comments in Articles for deletion/Get the L Out and Reliable sources/Noticeboard#UncommonGroundMedia. This is a formal request that you cease insinuating that I have engaged in canvassing: 1 and 2...."
You pushed the envelope once. Stop trying to intimidate me or bully me here or anywhere. Gaming with threats of Arbcom will backfire. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
No, you are not collecting random sources for an article called Trans ideology, you are personally stating that trans women are part of a trans ideology. This is a misuse of Wikipedia, it is an attack against the LGBT+ community to use Wikipedia in this way. You are in contravention of the Arbcom discretionary sanctions. As for your list of editorials by famously anti-trans lobbyists like Julie Bindel, that is evidence of anti-trans lobbyists attacking the very existence of trans women, not evidence that the trans community has a mysterious secret agenda and they are working to corrupt society, or abuse children, or rape lesbians, all types of fake news that you apparently want to see accepted on Wikipedia. Give over, this is hostile transphobic crap, and you should not publishing it as "fact" here.
As for canvassing, duh, the evidence is right above in the paragraph written by Halo Jerk, by pinging their chosen list of editors that they think might support their lobbying views. It's the very definition of canvassing and dramah-mongering. -- (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
No. I am contradicting your "there is no such thing as "trans ideology"." As I said, you have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Furthermore, WP:BIASED: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective....Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." Pyxis Solitary yak 11:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I am uninterested in encouraging your deliberate tangents. Focus on the question: Do you withdraw your claim that trans women are part of a trans ideology? -- (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
No editor owes you an answer to a personal question. Including me. Wikipedia is not your private battleground. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
So that's a no then. You are stating that you will continue to misuse Wikipedia to deliberately spread the fake news meme that trans women are guilty of having a "trans ideology". -- (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
As I said, you have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
So that's still a no then. You are stating that you will continue to misuse Wikipedia to deliberately spread the fake news meme that trans women are guilty of having a "trans ideology". Thanks for the clarification, it's always useful to have a black and white record of Wikipedia misuse and in this case deliberate and flagrant contravention of Arbcom discretionary sanctions. -- (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
As I said, you have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Pyxis Solitary yak 12:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
In regards to canvasing, WP:CANVAS doesn't seem to explicitly say pinging editors constitutes canvasing, but it probably should. It does strike me, as Fæ indicates, as attempting to draw in people who might take one particular side. While I disagree with Fæ's uncivil threats (toothless as they may be) against Pyxis Solitary, I do agree with Fæ that calling Murphy a TERF in the lede seems appropriate, given the sources and given that TERF itself is a neutral term. Since I was brought here by a canvassing attempt (in spirit, if not in fact), this will be my only post here in defense of myself or my views. I've got a talk page if people have further comments towards me. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, going by reliable sources, neither is "TERF" is a neutral term (see my user page), nor is there a single nonpartisan RS factually calling Meghan Murphy such. See section below where Fae failed to produce any RS for this claim. The article is in a completely terrible state right now, and that despite being a WP:BLP article. Thank you Fae and Newimpartial. Rhino (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
What I spy with my eyes is Fæ having a different opinion on what constitutes canvassing. Not once, but twice. Here and here. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Sauzer: Putting aside the lobbying and canvassing of this thread by the usual suspects for a moment, a simple search for news articles about "Meghan Murphy" shows overwhelmingly only returns about her ban for hate speech on Twitter, the associated legal case and associated rejections by various notable institutions as a public speaker on feminism, because of her becoming famous for her hate speech on Twitter. Even this basic test of what Murphy is now most notable for, shows that her internet footprint and public interest coverage is all based on her hateful published views about trans women. This makes her the very definition of what it is to be known for TERF views, and so including a statement about her as a "trans exclusionary" or "anti-trans" notable person is entirely appropriate and extremely easy to reliably source with many, many reliable sources in the body of the article. If anything her campaigning against trans rights needs expansion.
I recommend that those tempted to edit-war over the inclusion of "trans", focus on sources first, as they make the emphasis needed in the lede very obvious. -- (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
"This makes her the very definition of what it is to be known for TERF views...." WP:UNDUE conclusions are definitely not acceptable in BLPs. Even if she is known for having opinions against transgender activism and transgender rights legislation, she is also known for having other views that have nothing to do with transgender. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, no she is not really known to most people for anything other than her Twitter ban for hate speech, deliberately and repeatedly misgendering trans women. That's what she does, and that's what this article needs to make clear in order to ensure a fair representation of the reliable source evidence. She's not just a TERF, the legal case makes her a poster girl example of being a TERF. -- (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Nope. The Twitter lawsuit does not define the BLP. Her public statements about the sex industry preceded the Twitter case, as well as her opinions about male feminists, the sex industry, etc. You may want to pigeonhole Murphy, but that's not going to fly in the BLP. Do you need an Admin to explain the difference between POV and WP:PROPORTION. Pyxis Solitary yak 12:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Duh, "weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" was literally my point, try reading it rather than just slagging me off and attacking my intelligence or experience. The vast majority of most widely read news articles of public interest are about Murphy's Twitter case and her subsequent rejection by multiple respected institutions for her hate speech. Her ranty blog and weird anti-trans rubbish that bills itself as somehow about women's rights, is all secondary chaff compared to that TERF footprint. Ranty pro-TERF editorials by famously anti-trans lobbyists and pundits are not "reliable, published material", it's just more social media click bait and lobbyist PR. -- (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment before restoring the TERF attribute in the lede, I checked the available sourcing and found that multiple RS (including mainstream ones) use that term in relation to the article's subject. I would not have restored the term if I had not found such attributions; I have also found no RS that argue that the subject does not represent a TERF perspective, only the subject arguing that the term itself constitutes hate speech. This is strictly parallel to other political labels that are consistently applied to subjects of BLPs that are not accepted by the article subjects themselves, and I am following the same principle here as policy dictates and as I do elsewhere: follow the RS, don't give undue WEIGHT to the subject's own political labels but note the subject's reservations where properly sourced. It seems clear that this particular subject is notable mostly for her TERF activism (and previously for her anti-SW activism) and so we should be clear about this in the lede. Newimpartial (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and Pyxis Solitary - it wasn't a topic for this page, really, but you can't make the argument that "transgender ideology" exists just because people object to it on OpEd pages, and especially not on the basis of "facts" unless you actually have some. That is literally the "Cultural Marxism" argumentation all over again, and it simply isn't valid under any circumstances. Newimpartial (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

In my 06:53, 25 July 2019 comment I said "she's against trans ideology and transgender rights legislation." The term "trans ideology" and "gender ideology" are used interchangeably in various publications and talks, by Murphy and other journalists, authors, and speakers. The section on Bill C-16 states "which encoded gender identity". On 09:31, 12 July 2019 gender ideology was added to lead and deleted on 12 July 2019, re-added and re-deleted. On 10:37, 24 July 2019 I added "She is critical of gender identity ideology" to the Views section and provided sources that state "gender ideology". The terminology was removed on 25 July 2019. I restored it with additional sources. It was removed again on 21:53, 25 July 2019. Which led to a personal attack by IP 104.232.202.112. The same 104.232.202.112 that called me a "TERF" in her/his 15:06, 1 August 2019 comment above. The term "Trans ideology" exists and its existence is verified by numerous sources. Editors don't get to pick and choose what sources are or are not convenient for supporting or disputing information. WP:OSTRICH: "We do not make our own judgments about the importance of a topic, we use reliable sources instead" is also relevant in regards to the nitpicking of subjects in an article. But above all, this is a BLP, where WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NOR are absolute policies. Pyxis Solitary yak 03:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Terms such as "trans ideology", "gender ideology" and for that matter "gender critical" are used by a minority within Queer communities and queer scholarship that are hostile to the inclusion of Trans people and/or who equate the recognition of gender identity with some kind of oppression based on gendered essences (if I understand the argument correctly). As such, these terms are located within a fringe discourse (much the same way as "Cultural Marxism" is used within another fringe discourse). The fact that these terms undeniably are used does not imply that the phenomena that they refer to exist, or that the terms give a valid label and interpretation to the phenomena. In this article we could certainly explain the terms the subject uses and preFers (and indeed we already do this to some extent), but what we cannot do is use FRINGE terms as though they describe consensus reality. Newimpartial (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm somewhat agnostic on the question of whether or not the exact phrase "trans-exclusionary" must appear in the lead, but she's widely known for claiming that transgender women are men, opposing self ID laws, and arguing that gender identity is an ideology that harms women's rights, and for those reasons, critics have argued that she is anti-trans, described her as TERF, and have questioned her commitment to feminism. She disputes these characterizations, and describes herself as a radical feminist. To the extent she gets covered at all in the mainstream press, it is overwhelmingly for her very public advocacy against legislation that is intended to protection trans people. I don't think we can necessarily say that she is either a radical feminist or a trans-exclusionary radical feminist as a matter of fact, but we do need to mention the controversy in the lead. Nblund talk 16:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I have been so bold and refined the lead section to be neutral, while the discussion here seems to be going off on tangents and turning into an ideological battleground. Wikipedia seems to have a great many rules, so let's all adhere to them. As per WP:BLPCOI: "editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all." If anyone here has a habit of calling people "TERF," they might want to be extra careful in their edits to stick to neutrality. :-) Rhino (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The term TERF has been discussed extensively on WP, and it has been generally agreed that the term has a fairly neutral connotation; it is also a term of self-identification for some (though not all) of those espousing TERF perspectives and attitudes. On the other hand, since most of the editors participating on the various talk pages you've edited since joining Wikipedia do not find your perspective to be neutral or grounded in sources, maybe you are not the best judge of what is neutral? You appear to the the one with a strongly biased view regarding this article's subject, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources contradict your claim that the term "TERF" has a neutral connotation. See my user page. And I've never heard of someone calling herself "TERF" except in jest; citations welcome. Rhino (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Pyxis Solitary did so very recently, though in an unfortunate way. Also, the main writer making the "slur" argument in the sources you cite on your user page is the subject of this article. Newimpartial (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, really? Show me where I called myself a "TERF"? Pyxis Solitary yak 03:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
My mistake - I really thought you had. Comment struck. Newimpartial (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Yup. The same  IP 104.232.202.112  editor posted a bogus comment attributed to me with a fake signature. Pyxis Solitary yak 06:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Take another look at my user page please, Newimpartial:
"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." -- First sentence of a neutral news article from Inside Higher Ed. Unrelated to Meghan Murphy.
"Serwotka also pointed to online use of the acronym “Terf,” which stands for “trans exclusionary radical feminist.” “This word is always used alongside misogynistic language,” she said, “Terf means a woman not worthy of respect.” -- Opinion of A Woman's Place UK spokeswoman Ruth Serwotka published in Morning Star (British newspaper). Unrelated to Meghan Murphy.
“Terf is now being used in a kind of discourse which has clear similarities with hate-speech directed at other groups (it makes threats of violence, it includes other slur-terms, it uses metaphors of pollution)…” -- Feminist linguist Deborah Cameron quoted by Sarah Ditum in an opinion piece for New Statesman. Unrelated to Meghan Murphy.
"Where the advance of terf, as a bullying tool, has already succeeded in repressing speech – and maybe even research – “transphobe”, while being less snarl-friendly, has the advantage of implying that any child-related caution – about, say, lack of research on the longer term outcomes of early transition – could never be reasoned, only pathological." -- Opinion piece by Catherine Bennett published by The Guardian. Unrelated to Meghan Murphy.
"More recently, at the Anarchist Book Fair, Helen Steel was surrounded, she writes, by “around 30 trans activists who shouted misogynistic abuse in my face and at others, and who would not leave me alone. This included: ugly terf, fucking terf scum, bitch, fascist and more.”" -- Helen Steel being quoted in the same opinion piece.
And that's not even all. Was I able to convince you? :-)
Reliable sources clearly indicate that "TERF" is a questionable label. Wikipedia musn't use it to describe people.
Rhino (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
You appear to be recycling a list of mostly anti-trans writers and their views without providing any links. Not useful in this context, unlikely to convince anyone that these are illuminating sources. The IHE article (link) actually concludes with a quote "Please stop your harassment of Dr. Rachel McKinnon,” reads one of many similar emails received by this reporter after requesting comment from McKinnon. “‘TERF’ is not a slur. [McKinnon] needs your support, not your contributing to further hate and violence threats from TERFs.
A deeper dive into the views being quoted:
  • Deborah Cameron, one of 130 signatures on the list opposing the ban against notorious anti-trans writer Julie Bindel.
  • Ruth Serwotka not only speaks for an anti-trans lobbyist group, but also signed that letter supporting Julie Bindel.
  • Helen Steel, repeatedly promotes the existence of a "trans ideology" in the press and campaigns against trans women equality.
-- (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Rhino, you have by your own account given a list of op-ed pieces which, per policy, are almost never to be considered RS for factual or descriptive statements. Thee only exception is the Inside Higher Ed piece, which could be used to support the claim that opinions differ about the term TERF but which by no means offers a RS confirmation of its status as a slur, as you appear to believe. Newimpartial (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
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. Rhino (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
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. Newimpartial (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
You are ignoring my central point. The IHE news piece and many RS opinion pieces prove that "TERF" as a term is contentious and matter of acute public debate. As such, Wikipedia cannot use it to describe someone. Meanwhile, could you please directly link me to all RS that you have which factually describe Meghan Murphy as a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" instead merely talking about some people labeling as such? Thanks. Rhino (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
You are confusing "proof" with op-eds that on investigation are quoting some of the most extreme anti-trans TERF writers on the planet. It would be great if you would consider dropping this stick, everyone else has much bigger sticks, and yours has turned out to be a soft curly-whirly, you just keep refusing to actually look at it. Thanks -- (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Fae, you are displaying extreme bias again and again. Please tone down the hostility and take a better look. The IHE news piece is not opinion. The other pieces, which are opinion, stand in contrast to the opinion pieces which you and other editors have used to make statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Rhino (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we could start with Media Matters, which refers to Feminist Current as a "pro-TERF blog" in its remarkably in-depth analysis. Newimpartial (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a prime example of an opinion piece. There's enough of those on my user page showcasing the opposing point of view. :-) Rhino (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
From Media Matters for America: "Media Matters for America was founded in May 2004 by David Brock, a former conservative journalist who became a progressive. Brock said that he founded the organization to combat the conservative journalism sector that he had once been a part of. He founded the group with help from the Center for American Progress. Initial donors included Leo Hindery, Susie Tompkins Buell, and James Hormel."
So ... an opinion piece (aka "analysis") in a "progressive" source get a thumbs-up, but anything from a conservative source does not. Double-standard much? Pyxis Solitary yak 01:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I took a good, solid look at RSN before recommending the source in question. WP has generally found Media Matters information reliable, depending on the specific instance. I find this instance quite clear; it isn't a matter of "progressive" or "conservative". Newimpartial (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
It's still an "opinion". It is not a news story. No need to look further than the closing paragraph: "Right-wing media figures like Carlson ... are pushing a larger agenda that is anti-transgender ... But other media outlets and media consumers should be aware that nothing could be further from the truth; without transgender people leading the way, LGBTQ liberation cannot take place." This is a personal statement. And if a conservative opinion piece is not acceptable as RS -- neither is a liberal one. The door swings both ways. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Attempt at gaming WP:3RR reverted. At the WP:BLP noticeboard, editors ain't for that lack of attribution in a situation like this. They are for WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE, and two of those are policies. Editors saying their opinion pieces are better than the other side's opinion pieces is poppycock. I agree with Rhinocera. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
And see Masem's comment at the BLP noticeboard about the lead.[12]. Don't tell me really gonna have to do an RfC on this. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Pyxis Solitary, if you can't tell the difference between well-informed and -researched analysis with a POV, and out-of-the-anal-orifice opinion - well, that's what the FALSEBALANCE policy is supposed to resolve.
And Halo Jerk1, the version you restored isn't attributed, it's WEASEL - you won't get any points for that. Also, none of the recent RfCs concerning anti-trans POV have turned out well for the goals of said anti-trans POV, but hey! Maybe you'll change the trend. And make no mistake: enshrining FALSEBALANCE by ignoring the actual balance of RS is objectively anti-trans even if not intended as such. I AGF in your motives, but the results of your proposals for encyclopedic tone would be as bad as the Sealion attacks of yore. Newimpartial (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
At the noticeboard, there are the explicit statements about the article, like these.[13][14]. And then there are the comments like this one.[15]. You don't understand WP:WEASEL. You don't understand WP:FALSEBALANCE. Masem's been editing longer than us and he's a better editor than us. He's right. Sealion attacks? Man. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Abracadabra: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed. " Media Matters for America is considered a "biased" source. So once again, what's good enough for liberal opinion sources is good enough for conservative opinion sources. Pyxis Solitary yak 07:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
That terse phrase doesn't really encapsulate the actual RSN discussions in question. Also, in spite of what others have characterized elsewhere, I have no problem with their disruption of Feminist Current being attributed; I was simply offering a reliable source. Finally, in a discussion concerning Feminism, I don't see why a FALSEBALANCE should be created between "liberal and conservative opinion sources" on issues like the status of "TERF". Newimpartial (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Why should that lead to a false balance? If Wikipedia's coverage of feminism was limited to what's said by liberal publications that adhere to a certain narrow definition of feminism, that would surely not be balanced at all. Should articles about creationism primarily use citations from a set of Christian conservative publications that all adhere to the same interpretation of Christianity? Rhino (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Put down the straw man, please. The preponderance of sources on gender identity - both academic sources and feminist organizations - regard the positions taken by the BLP subject and the organizations and supports to be FRINGE positions, and that is employing a broad tent vision of what counts as "feminist". This is simply the state of the existing sources (and reality), while the increasingly desperate attempts to present "but what about" sources, such as The Daily Nous or the Economist's Finance editor, as if they held expertise in this domain - show just the kind of FALSEBALANCE that would result from your interventions. Presenting trans-inclusion as somehow equivalent to creationism is the most offensive kind of gaslighting: mainstream scholarship shows that it is "gender critical" theory that is FRINGE, not feminist intersectionality and trans-inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Removed the most recent comment by User:Rhinocera, this was block evasion and sockpuppetry. -- (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Why not name the person who Meghan Murphy misgendered on Twitter?[edit]

I tried to refine the article by specifying the person who Meghan Murphy "misgendered" on Twitter, since it's the infamous Jessica Yaniv who's been making the rounds in the news lately, for that weird human rights complaint regarding genital waxing, as well as allegations of sexual harassment of a minor. There seems to be enough material about this case to possibly add Jessica Yaniv to Wikipedia. Is there any particular reason my edits were reverted to not name Yaniv? Is it because the Jessica Yaniv page doesn't yet exist? Thanks. Rhino (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Jessica Yaniv has not yet been shown to meet WP Notability criteria, since there is no article, and I doubt they ever will given the "one event" principle. BLP policy favors the preservation of individual privacy in such cases whether or not the subject is Trans. She should therefore be neither named in this article nor redlinked. Newimpartial (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Re Jessica Yaniv:
The truth about Jessica Yaniv is beginning to emerge, Anna Slatz (July 18, 2019), The Post Millennial.
Publication ban lifted on transgender complainant’s name in Surrey waxing dispute, Tom Zytaruk (July 19, 2019), Surrey Now-Leader, Black Press.
A Canadian Human Rights Spectacle Exposes the Risks of Unfettered Gender Self-ID, Helen Joyce (July 25, 2019), Quillette.
Yaniv used public venues to communicate and self-identify — which is why the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal lifted the ban on access to the name and the proceedings in Jessica Yaniv vs. Various Waxing Salons.
By the way, are Canadian sources the only ones that are to be considered reliable for use in Wikipedia when editing content about Yaniv (and for that matter, Meghan Murphy, who sued Twitter Inc. in a U.S. court)? Pyxis Solitary yak 09:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Could you just stop quoting Quillette please? It is not a reliable source. It is famous for being the right wing creator of misogynist and homophobic personal attacks Toby Young's blog of choice, and is the home of self promotional pundits trying to be a outrageously controversial as possible to increase their click-bait profiles.
The "thepostmillennial" post is by Anna Slatz who, yes, writes for the Quillette.[16] What exactly is "thepostmillennial", it has no editorial policies whatsoever as far as I can make out. There are 2 named editors and one is Barrett Wilson (a psudonym created last year), notable for being an editor on, can't make it up, Quillette, and based on their personal twitter stream seems pretty devoted to making and retweeting anti-trans tweets.
The last and third source you choose to quote is "surreynowleader", a website devoted to free news related to Surrey, BC and owned by Black News Media, among 150 websites they run which seem established to raise money from "marketing solutions" based on their self description. Er, what? How is that a good source for an article about Jessica Yaniv, or to prove that she meets PERSON?
Thanks -- (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
There are many more reliable sources about Jessica Yaniv. Please just use Google. :-) Maybe I'll make it the topic of my first Wikipedia article. Rhino (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Please do go ahead. It's easier to see whether an article has been created rather than debating hypothetical notability based on what seems an absence of quality sources that would establish notability. -- (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Per WP:BLP1E, it's better to err in favor of not naming people who are not widely known outside of a single event. This earlier discussion dealt with the same case, and the general view was that she was not notable enough to be named. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not our job to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or to call attention to "infamous" figures. The important facts here are that Meghan Murphy was banned for calling a trans woman "he" on Twitter, and she filed a lawsuit as a result. The name adds nothing of encyclopedic value. The mere existence of sources is not a sufficient reason to create an article, and sites like the Postmillenial and Quillette are really not the sorts of high quality sources that we should be using here. Nblund talk 13:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Rhino, whether or not you start working on an article about her, please respect her pronouns. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
* After going through the BLP guidelines and checking all the sources I could find, I've decided to create an "event" article rather than a biographical one. Only one source I could find, an opinion piece, talks about something other than the genital waxing case, so I thought it's best to create an article about that. Here it is: Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case. I think maybe the title could be better, but let's discuss that in the talk page of that article. Rhino (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The Post Millennial is not included in WP:RS/P.
Surrey Now-Leader is not included in WP:RS/P.
"There is no consensus on the reliability of Quillette." Additionally, Helen Joyce is the finance editor for The Economist. Authoring an article in Quillette does not negate her credibility.
No one has crowned you ruler of reliable sources. I said it once and repeat it again: WP:BIASED: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective....Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." Pyxis Solitary yak 07:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a BLP. Just because a website is not listed as prohibited, does not mean that any old biased crud is fair game. Quillette is a source for reading what right-wing loons think is normal, it is quite literally extremist, conspiracy theorist, self promoting trash. If you feel you need to defend it, please go and actually carefully read the articles by Toby Young who was socially disgraced last year for being a published disgusting misogynist and homophobe, or the fictional character that writes there that was created last year, ... after being socially disgraced last year, and is now one of the two editors of "postmillennial" which you also seem to think is good as a source for Wikipedia articles you are editing. Join the dots please. Thanks -- (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Pyxis Solitary, how does being finance editor for the Economist grant a writer WEIGHT or reliability for the discussion of gender identity? Surely we would not be citing Judith Butler in an article on economics, even if she published a money piece in a webzine, so I don't understand what you're getting at here. Newimpartial (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Simple answer. How does being a Caucasian person grant Paul Kivel weight or reliablility for writing a book about racism? How about Gay men as the subject: are gay men the only ones granted weight and reliability for writing about gay men and for the discussion of gay men? How about traditional marriage as the subject: are heterosexuals the only ones granted weight and reliability for writing about traditional marriage and for the discussion of heterosexual relationships? If a journalist, editor, writer, author is educated on a subject, regardless of what publication he/she is affiliated with, he/she has as much weight or reliability as any other journalist, editor, writer, author on the subject. Your nitpicking is ridiculous. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Wow. I have never seen goalposts move so fast. I ask why qualifications in Economics equate to WEIGHT in gender identity, and I get a reply sustaining which identities grant speaking positions about topics. I didn't talk about anybody's identities in this discussion, only qualifications. In other words, being demonstrably "educated in a subject". There is nothing in the Economist editor's CV that makes her competent to write about gender identity, any more than there is something in Judith Butler's CV that makes her competent to write about finance. Quilette is essentially a SPS without editorial oversight, so it does not grant reliability on its own (and neither does Daily Nous for that matter). Newimpartial (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Anyone that chooses to post in the notorious self-promotional crap-fest that is Quillette, does not deserve to be taken seriously as a source on Wikipedia, for anything. They lose all credibility. -- (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the name of a non-notable person from the subtitle, this is unnecessary naming and shaming of a trans woman and should be avoided. I have struck the paragraph by the sock puppet account. Please avoid reposting material created or promoted from someone who is indefinitely blocked. Thanks -- (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Which RS even call Murphy a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist"?[edit]

Just asking this question in a new section because the other one is a huge mess. Could someone please link the reliable sources which have called Meghan Murphy a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist"? The two citations at the end of the sentence using that phrase don't actually use that phrase. We've been discussing how "TERF" is (or isn't) a contentious term that shouldn't (or should) be used in Wikipedia's tone, but that whole discussion is moot if there is no RS that calls her by this term in the first place; correct me if I'm wrong. Rhino (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources you provide show that Murphy calls herself a radical feminist. So no problem there with those two words.
By any meaningful interpretation or spin on the words "trans-exclusionary", this precisely describes Murphy. She refuses to call trans women women, but repeatedly and in multiple publications over a period of years calls them men. Her notoriety is entirely based on transphobic hate speech, thanks to the Twitter case, and this appears to have massively added to her notability (in practice hard to distinguish from notoriety). It is uncontroversial to say that based on her own publications she appears to go out of her way to court controversy, presumably seeking reposts and requotes, for saying offensive things about trans women and attacks the LGBT community.
Some sources which class Murphy as a TERF:
  • Herald Scotland, January 19, 2019, What can Scotland learn from Canada about the feminist trans rights backlash?, Shona Craven
  • Pink News, Lord Moonie quits Labour party over transphobia accusations, Sofia Lotto Persio, May 15, 2019
  • Herald Sun (Australia), July 31, 2019, Feminists avoiding the hard issues, Rita Panahi
-- (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The Herald Scotland piece does not call her a TERF, only says some people call her so.
  • The Herald Sun piece seems paywalled but a short Google preview indicates it also doesn't call her a TERF, only says some people call her so.
  • The Pink News opinion piece calls her an "anti-trans writer." In any case, Pink News is very biased, like Feminist Current, and cannot be used for statements of fact.
It looks like we've been having a totally moot argument.
The current wording in the lead is not supported by a single RS. It should be changed imminently unless someone can provide one.
Rhino (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Is there any reason that you would not call Murphy a transphobe, based on her own transphobic hate speech as well as the mountain of reliable sources that reported her hate speech? Even The Times uses that word, in their headline 'Transphobic' blogger invited to Holyrood. It's the very epitome of being a famous transphobe, having a Times headline confirm it. -- (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, is there any reason I would go by personal opinions rather than reliable sources? Rhino (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
No. It's a question of fact. Read transphobe. If you can explain exactly how all the verifiable evidence on the record of hate speech, misgendering women because they are trans, falsely and bizarrely promoting a "trans ideology", making personal abusive attacks against specific trans women because they are trans women, attacking the entire LGBT+ community as "enablers", and deriding any form of equality or legal protection for trans women is somehow, by definition, not the actions of a transphobe, then I would very much like to read your definition of what a transphobe is, that might almost magically exclude all the acts which almost everyone else interprets as transphobic. An answer would be nice, rather than another question. Thanks -- (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Qmunity certainly does so, and they do have the expertise, but since they are an advocacy organization we would have to give in-text attribution for their labelling (which is reliably sourced here). Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Can we start by removing the statement of fact which is not found in a single reliable source? We could achieve this by notifying the adiminstrator who protected the page that we have established that the current content is not based on any reliable source. And it's a WP:BLP article. Rhino (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Which are who questioning: the Georgia Straight's RS status or the expertise of Qmunity? Also, what is wrong with Global news or the other RSes? Newimpartial (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Georgia Straight does not call Meghan Murphy a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist." They cite Qmunity, a highly biased advocacy group, doing so. (The Morning Star quotes A Woman's Place UK; should we use those quotes for statements of fact?) I see no citation from Global News. I see no other RSs. The lead section of this WP:BLP article is currently a catastrophe. Rhino (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
If you look at the terf tag in the globalnews website, you will find their Megan Murphy coverage. Shocking, I know, but a catastrophe? Newimpartial (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Here are the descriptions I've been able to find in mainstream reliable sources:

  • NBC News: self-proclaimed radical feminist Meghan Murphy ...To the ire of many trans advocates and allies, Murphy, who is heterosexual, regularly critiques transgender activism and alleges that gender identity is an “ideology” that hurts women’s rights.
  • Global News Self-described radical feminist Meghan Murphy, founder of the online publication Feminist Current
  • The Hill Murphy, founder and editor of the website Feminist Current
  • The Wall Street Journal: Meghan Murphy, a gender-politics blogger
  • CNET Meghan Murphy, founder of the blog Feminist Current
  • The CBC does not use it's own voice to describe her, but quotes others who call her an anti-trans speaker.

I don't see sources consistently describing either Murphy or Feminist Current as a "feminist" or "trans-exclusionary feminist" in their own voices - so neither of these descriptors seems well supported to me. I agree that "trans-exclusionary" seems like a logical summation of her views, but we need firmer footing. That said: every single one of these sources covers her in relation to her controversial views on trans people, her ban from twitter, and/or her advocacy against self-ID and other trans rights bills - so the failure to cite that controversy in the lead also seems like a problem. Nblund talk 18:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with this. I feel like people are getting too caught up in the specific language used. The key point is that she's mostly famous as an anti-trans activist; that needs to be both prominent in the lead and in the body. The current version presents her as mainly famous as a feminist, which is absolutely not accurate. (In fact, my problem with "trans-exclusionary feminist" in this case is that the feminist part seems poorly-cited outside of Murphy's self-description - we can include it, but we shouldn't structure the entire article around her self-identification as a feminist when she's largely famous as an anti-trans activist.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Removed the most recent comment by User:Rhinocera, this was block evasion and sockpuppetry. -- (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Protection[edit]

I protected the page because people seem to be edit warring over it and I don't like blocking people because then they can't discuss things. I don't know which version is correct but just protected in whatever it was, The Wrong Version, when I got there. Discuss the problems and come to an understanding. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for encouraging discussion! -- (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Removed the most recent comment by User:Rhinocera, this was block evasion and sockpuppetry. -- (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather, all of the discussion that is going to be had about this was had at this article's talk page. The only thing left here now is stonewalling. I'd taken the issue to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists for opinions from the more general community. Even after most folks there so far have said we should attribute, this revert[17] was made at this article with a declaration that "An RFC would be excessive." There is now an RfC at the BLP noticeboard because this issue doesn't just affect this article. Thanks for wanting to stop the edit warring. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
No they have not. Please stop misrepresenting consensus. That discussion at BLP/N shows multiple users telling you off for your canvassing and misrepresentation of statements by others. Misrepresentation in this way is a shockingly bad way of manipulating the views of the Wikipedia community. You are blatantly gaming the system, badly. -- (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, we are reading two different noticeboards. It took this alert[18] just to get anyone to say "don't attribute." Keep believing what you want, I guess. The RfC there now will put a stop to you declaring falsehoods. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I am not Jesus Christ. Thanks -- (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: In the light of the extensive manipulation of discussion and the article by a sock puppet account, refer to #Possible COI editing or meatpuppetry, I suggest that page protection is not lifted until contributors have had sufficient time to discuss and evaluate the extent to which manipulation can be identified or corrected. Thanks -- (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Can you confirm that it is a sock puppet account? Or are we now to take the word of 'Joe Blow' editors as gospel? Pyxis Solitary yak 07:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather was not involved in the sockpuppet investigation. This was already posted below, but to make it super easy to find, here's the link again: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TaylanUB/Archive. By the way, I am not American, so I was not familiar with "Joe Blow". If you are characterizing other editors to this page, it would be a good idea to explain or link to something that explains it to avoid giving unintentional offence. At first glance it looked a lot like a sexual joke. -- (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Halo Jerk1 I saw the discussion at the BLP board. That's how I found this page in the first place. Pyxis Solitary I see that Bbb23 blocked Rhinocera and they seem to be pretty good at this sockpuppet stuff. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TaylanUB/Archive. Joe Blow redirects to John Q. Public. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

God help roommates and family members who share Internet service. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Fortunately the checkuser process is slightly more sophisticated that seeing an IP match. If you are personally concerned that you edit from a shared address, it is always advisable to make a statement to that effect on your user page. I edit from other shared machines and shared networks frequently, and have stated this in the past on my user pages. It has never been an issue. -- (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to add "transphobic hate speech" to the lede[edit]

Based on the sources supplied during these talk page discussions by Rhinocera, is has become increasingly clear that Meghan Murphy is most notable for her hate speech against trans women generally as well as trans women specifically.

  • It is not contested that she was banned on Twitter for her use of that social media platform to repeatedly publish transphobic hate speech.
  • It is a matter of fact that Murphy has refused to retract her transphobic statements and publications.
  • A reading of Murphy's polemical articles, such as https://spectator.us/yaniv-scandal-end-product-trans-activism, shows that Murphy's notability has been built on promulgating the transphobic myth of a "gender identity ideology" or "transgender ideology", attacking the "LGBT community" as being part of a fantasy "transgender ideology" for supporting transgender people, consistently and deliberately misgendering trans women, condemning Canadian society in general for "swallowing" a "gender identity ideology"... the list goes on if anyone can bother to keep finding examples in the transphobic diatribes.

Given Murphy's own publications that are packed with defamatory transphobic myths and fantasies, given also the history of her ban from Twitter for hate speech, and court records of that hate speech described in her associated failed attempt to sue Twitter, there is remarkably robust evidence that Murphy meets every possible definition of being a transphobe and a publisher of transphobic hate speech. It is a failure for Wikipedia for this not to be mentioned in the lead of the article. When unprotected, the lead should be amended to at least mention the Twitter ban and include a statement about her use of hate speech and the resulting Twitter ban and instances of being no-platformed because of her use of hate speech against transgender people. I believe it would be fair and correct in "Wikipedia's voice" to say that Murphy is a transphobe or to be labelled or categorized as a transphobe based on the overwhelming evidence of her transphobic abuse of others, the transgender community and the LGBT+ community.

Maybe someone can come up with a specific sentence to add. It's very easy to find reliable sources for all of this, including Murphy's own publications and the most respected reliable sources, such as The Times. I guess this will also make it fair and reasonable to add the article to any categories Wikipedia has for "Hate speech publishers" or "Transphobic hate speech" or the equivalent, this BLP provides a very useful rare reference example of someone known for publishing transphobic hate speech with impeccable and indisputable source to support it. Thanks -- (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

* Comment - "transphobic" should probably be mentioned (possibly not in wikivoice), but I haven't seen any RS characterizing the subject's work as "hate speech". "Hate speech" also has a legal definition in Canada, and AFAIK there haven't been any legal opinions that Murphy has run afoul of this concept, so introducing it in the article would be OR. Noting the responses by mainstream Canadian feminist and queer organizations to the subject's various FRINGE positions and statements should be sufficient, IMO. The lede must not, however, be whitewashed. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Not directly related to the topic of this section but: could you please stop referring to political positions as FRINGE unless you have solid citations to back up the claim? I keep seeing you make such confident statements in passing, going as far as saying they're the consensus here, when I see no actual indication thereof. Rhino (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Gender identity is constitutionally protected against discrimination in Canadian law, and Trans women are legally women according to law and according to the practice of all mainstream Canadian feminists and women's organizations. Quebec's largest feminist group elected a trans woman as its president a couple of years ago. Transphobic positions such as those taken by this article's subject are therefore FRINGE in relation to both Canadian society at large and feminism in particular. Newimpartial (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The court summary of the attempt to sue Twitter confirms that she was publishing hate speech, and she has posted most of that exact same content which was correctly identified as hate speech in other places, including the Spectator article. Specifically, Murphy's lawyers never attempted to deny the publications on Twitter were hate speech, and never attempted to appeal Twitter's assessment of it as being hate speech directed at trans women. -- (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid you'll need a cite for that. Violations of the terms of service cannot be assumed to be hate speech, without evidence. "Hate speech" is a very specific term. Newimpartial (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I don't think we've got the sourcing we would need for making that claim in Wikipedia's voice. Nblund talk 19:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Secondary sources consistently refer to "hate speech", "hateful speech" and "hateful conduct". None of the following are op-eds, they are actual journalism:
  1. "In October, Twitter created new rules effectively categorizing anti-transgenderism commentary as hate speech. A Canadian writer named Meghan Murphy who does not accept that transgender people have the right to decide which gender they will be called got herself permanently banned from Twitter."
    The Lebanon Daily News (Pennsylvania), December 18, 2018, "Twitter and free speech"
  2. "On February 11, 2019 Meghan Murphy filed suit against Twitter Inc. and Twitter International Company after the social media platform permanently banned her account. Twitter has alleged that Murphy "misgender[ed] another user" and engaged in other hateful speech that violated their Hateful Conduct Policy."
    James Madison Institute, June 4, 2019, Social Media: Publisher, Public Forum, or Something Else?
  3. "In November, the argument reached a crescendo when Twitter permanently booted Murphy from the platform for violating the site's rules against hateful conduct, after she referenced a transgender woman as "him." Twitter's decision came after it updated its policy against hateful conduct last year. The updated policy bars users from referring to a transgender person with the incorrect pronoun, a practice it calls "misgendering." The company also prohibits users from addressing transgender people by birth name, a practice that's known as "deadnaming." Murphy, who filed the lawsuit on Monday in the Superior Court of California, alleges that Twitter violated its agreement with users when it changed the hateful conduct policy without alerting the public."
    CNET, February 12, 2019, Twitter sued by blogger who was barred for tweets about transgender people; A Canadian blogger clashes with Twitter over tweets such as "How are transwomen not men?" Twitter calls the claims in the lawsuit "meritless."
  4. A row has broken out after a radical feminist banned from Twitter for "hateful conduct" over posts about a trans woman was invited to speak at the Scottish parliament. ... Ms Murphy believes that biological males should not be allowed to use women only spaces, such as changing rooms and toilets, or compete in women's sport. She is suing Twitter after it ruled that a tweet describing a transgender woman as "him" breached its hateful conduct policy on "misgendering" and banned her for life.
    The Times, May 4, 2019 'Transphobic' blogger invited to Holyrood
-- (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
*If you can reliably source the reason for the Twitter ban as "hateful conduct" then that could be included in the lede, but there is still a distinction that would make the move to "hate speech" OR if not sourced more effectively than the Lebanon Daily News. Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The James Madison Institute is a fiscally conservative think-tank which sponsors "young leaders" on college campuses. The Social Media: Publisher, Public Forum, or Something Else article is written by a third year law student. gnu57 19:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The sources say that Twitter banned her for violating the policies on hate speech, but they don't appear to adopt that language themselves. Twitter is (fortunately) not really the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes hate speech. Nblund talk 19:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure, fortunately it is the secondary sources which use the language, which means that is precisely what we need to use it ourselves. It would be a problem if only primary sources used it. -- (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
So far you have one secondary source doing so, the Lebanon Daily News. The bar for criminal accusations on BLPs (and no mistake, Canada criminalizes hate speech) is higher than that. Newimpartial (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Er, this is Wikipedia, not Canada. -- (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The BLP subject lives in Canada and is subject to Canadian criminal law. The relevant policy is WP:BLPCRIME, not WP:BLPUSCRIME. Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. We need to stick closely to sources and be hesitant about saying things in Wikivoice. We do not want to become RationalWiki, and be dismissed by readers as partisan. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the comment from User:Rhinocera, and left another as struck, this was block evasion and sock puppetry. -- (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose per others' rationales. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's examine the fact "she was banned from Twitter for using the social media platform to repeatedly publish hateful speech attacking trans women". In what way is that not accurate and precise as a description of the Twitter ban? -- (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This is becoming tiresome. "Hate speech" has a legal significance in the criminal law of Canada, which applies to this BLP subject. "Hateful speech" does not. Newimpartial (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Cool, based on Freedom of speech in Canada, we have no problems with this factual statement then. It can be added to the lede text to clarify this important aspect of Murphy's fundamental public notability. -- (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
"Hateful speech" (Twitter's term) is not "Hate speech" (your term): it is the latter that is criminal where this BLP subject lives and your OR claim is therefore subject to BLPCRIME. I don't understand why you aren't taking this more seriously - violating BLPCRIME has resulted in a number of blocks and bans, and you are verging into WP:CIR territory on this issue. Newimpartial (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Please actually read what I wrote above, no need to start making threats. Here it is again: Let's examine the fact "she was banned from Twitter for using the social media platform to repeatedly publish hateful speech attacking trans women".
A bit rich to be waiving WP:CIR at me, when you appear to be failing to read what you are replying to. -- (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Throughout this discussion you insisted on "hate speech" until just now, and even that doesn't make a clear change to your earlier proposal - it is ambiguous. No gaslighting please. Newimpartial (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Sigh, how about reserving claims about gaslighting for cases when the facts support the allegation of this type of harassment?
You dismissed me as being incompetent by waiving CIR at me (see my talk page for the list of articles I have created, competently). To find it ironic that you have not actually read the sentence and words within it that you are complaining about, is not gaslighting in anyone's common sense understanding. However, if your intent was to derail discussion, congratulations, you are obviously skilled at introducing tangents. -- (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I have read your every contribution to this discussion. This was the first time you may have been proposing "hateful speech" (and the sentence reads like COPYVIO, so I didn't know whether it was an actual proposal). Until then you had been proposing "hate speech" contra BLP crime. I shouldn't have to provide the same diffs over and over to respond to your misstatements about the content of your own Post a (AKA "gaalighting"). Newimpartial (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
So, in conclusion you have raised no objection to "she was banned from Twitter for using the social media platform to repeatedly publish hateful speech attacking trans women" being in the lede, naturally with supporting sources. This can of course wait pending the 'reboot' RfC below. -- (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible COI editing or meatpuppetry[edit]

Rhinocera[edit]

The account User:Rhinocera is a confirmed sockpuppet of User:TaylanUB. Refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TaylanUB/Archive. Thanks to Nblund for being alert and creating the investigation request.

Worryingly, TaylanUB claims to have been in email contact with Meghan Murphy diff. TaylanUB was the creator of the Meghan Murphy article, just over a year ago. At that time the text was directly cut and past from Murphy's own profile on the FeministCurrent blog, and up until today, as the sock puppet account Rhinocera continued to change both the article and lobby and manipulate discussion on this talk page and on user talk pages while blocked.

@SlimVirgin:, on TaylanUB's talk page they claim to have forwarded you an email from Meghan Murphy. Could you say more about what that email was about, or whether correspondence with Murphy has resulted in any changes in the article?

In the light of this covert manipulation and possible meatpuppetry, I believe it would be sensible and accurate to add a COI editing notice to this talk page so that nobody is in doubt that these problems are likely to exist. Thanks -- (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

This seem excessive. If we can't point to specific content that violates policy, and the potentially conflicted user has been blocked, then there's nothing of significance to say here. If there's bad content, we should remove it. If there isn't, we should postpone the auto-da-fe. Nblund talk 14:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
There remain obvious questions hanging over content. My proposal to "press the reset button" may be a less controversial way forward, ... so long as nobody is still being emailed by Meghan Murphy to get changes to this BLP about herself. -- (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Others[edit]

Hi @SlimVirgin:. I am separating your edits from the above, but in the light that the sockmaster TaylanUB stated on 30 October 2018 "I just forwarded you an email from Meghan Murphy about possible BLP violations, since apparently she couldn't contact you. Pinging you here too since it seemed important..." there are obvious questions.

  1. Did you receive any emails or other off-wiki correspondence about this BLP before 30 October 2018 from anyone?
  2. You made significant changes to the article after 30 October 2019,[19] in fact just 5 days after TaylanUB stated they sent you an email from Meghan Murphy. Were any of the changes you made in any way in response to the email from Meghan Murphy?
  3. Did you enter into direct correspondence with Meghan Murphy?

For those that are unaware, SlimVirgin is an administrator on this project.

Thanks -- (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  • SlimVirgin: I hope you don't answer and encourage the delusion that any editor can presume to be the Grand Inquisitor of Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary yak 15:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Unlike the sock accounts, we have been around this project for a long time, so have you. Having been an admin myself, I appreciate the policies that apply in these circumstances and I also have significant respect for SV's past contributions. SV knows what I am doing, and I hope will provide suitable reassurance. Your inflammatory remarks here, and in other places in the last 24 hours have been unhelpful. Give it a rest, I am not your enemy, so you should stop trying to turn me in to one. -- (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
, I'd appreciate it if you would remove my name from the heading.
First, re: Taylan and possible COI, bias for or against doesn't constitute a COI (see WP:COINOTBIAS). COI is the result of an editor having a stake in a topic. An editor would have a COI if they were a close friend, family member, employee, or rival of the subject. If there is evidence of COI, WP:COIN is the best place to discuss it.
As for the subject's email to me, I contacted her in June 2018 to ask for a photograph, and that's all we discussed. In October she emailed me to say there were problems with the article. I didn't respond to that email or (as I recall) read it in detail. When dealing with contentious BLPs, I prefer to make my own decisions and not be influenced by suggestions or sources offered by the subject, whenever possible. In November, I made a few edits based on my own reading of the RS.
Like all BLPs, this article has to be written "responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone" (per WP:BLPSTYLE), all the more so because the subject is borderline notable. Editors with strong feelings in either direction should bear WP:BLPCOI in mind: "[E]ditors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all." SarahSV (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead (or "lede" as some prefer) and edits that led to article restriction[edit]

Because the above discussion "First sentence description TERF vs radical feminist" may be exhausting for some editors to follow the what-why, this may help others understand the embroglio that led to the page restriction.

This is the lead that existed on 24 July 2019:

Meghan Emily Murphy is a Canadian writer, journalist, and founder of Feminist Current,[1] a radical feminist blog and podcast.[2][3]
Based in Vancouver, Murphy has written for CBC News, The Globe and Mail, National Post, rabble.ca, and the New Statesman, among others, on women's issues from a radical-feminist perspective. Her writing critiques third-wave feminism, transgender rights, the sex industry, and exploitation of women in mass media.

  • IP 104.232.202.112 changed "a radical-feminist perspective"  to  "a trans-exclusionary radical-feminist perspective" (@ 13:39, 24 July 2019).
  • I reverted it (@ 03:30, 25 July 2019).
  • IP 104.232.202.112 reverted back to his/her version (@ 03:53, 25 July 2019). The edit was reverted again (@ 04:42, 25 July 2019). IP 104.232.202.112 reverted back to his/her version (@ 14:48, 26 July 2019). It was reverted (@ 09:22, 27 July 2019).

The lead was then edited by me (@ 11:43, 27 July 2019) to:

Meghan Emily Murphy is a Canadian writer, journalist, and founder of Feminist Current,[1] a radical feminist blog and podcast.[2][3] Her writing, speeches, and talks have criticized third-wave feminism, male feminists, the sex industry, exploitation of women in mass media, censoring, and transgender rights.
Based in Vancouver, Murphy has written for CBC News, The Globe and Mail, National Post, rabble.ca, and the New Statesman, among others. Feminist psychologist Phyllis Chesler described Murphy as a "Fourth Wave torchbearer".[4]

  • IP 104.232.202.112 changed "a radical feminist blog and podcast"  to  "a trans-exclusionary radical feminist blog and podcast" (@ 15:12, 1 August 2019).
  • Edit was reverted by SunTaxed (@ 21:50, 1 August 2019).
  • Newimpartial reverted SunTaxed back to the IP 104.232.202.112 version:  "trans-exclusionary radical feminist blog....", (@ 21:53, 1 August 2019).
  • I undid the revert by Newimpartial (@ 10:51, 2 August 2019).
  • Fae reverted my revert back to the IP 104.232.202.112 version:  "a trans-exclusionary radical....", (@ 10:55, 2 August 2019 ).

On 23:26, 2 August 2019, Rhinocera edited the lead to:

Meghan Emily Murphy is a Canadian writer, journalist, and founder of Feminist Current, a feminist blog and podcast.[1] Her writing, speeches, and talks have criticized third-wave feminism, male feminists, the sex industry, exploitation of women in mass media, censoring, and transgender activism. Based in Vancouver, Murphy has written for CBC News, The Globe and Mail, National Post, rabble.ca, and the New Statesman, among others. Feminist psychologist Phyllis Chesler described Murphy as a "Fourth Wave torchbearer".[2] 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.[3][4][5]

  • Newimpartial reverted this back to the version by IP 104.232.202.112 (@ 23:28, 2 August 2019).
  • Rhinocera undid the revert by Newimpartial (@ 23:40, 2 August 2019).
  • Newimpartial reverted Rhinocera back to the version by IP 104.232.202.112 (@ 23:42, 2 August 2019).
  • Rhinocera undid the revert by Newimpartial and returned it to the 23:26, 2 August 2019 status. (@ 23:55, 2 August 2019).
  • Newimpartial reverted Rhinocera and returned the lead to version by IP 104.232.202.112 (@ 03:43, 4 August 2019).
  • Halo Jerk1 reverted Newimpartial and returned the lead to the version by Rhinocera (@ 04:40, 4 August 2019).
  • Fæ reverted Halo Jerk1 and retuned the lead to the version by IP 104.232.202.112 (@ 08:27, 4 August 2019).
  • I reverted Fæ back to the version by Rhinocera (@ 09:04, 4 August 2019).
  • Fæ reverted my revert and restored the version by IP 104.232.202.112 (@ 09:17, 4 August 2019).

On 12:56, 4 August 2019, CambridgeBayWeather protected the article with {{pp-dispute}}, requiring administrator access. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure the history is on the history tab, without your commentary, should anyone want to examine it. What you miss out is that Rhinocera is a sockpuppet with the puppet master, originally blocked by @GorillaWarfare: for disruptive editing on transgender related articles, later having a unblock request rejected, now blocked indefinitely for the sockpuppetry. The puppet master was directly in contact with Meghan Murphy, so that leads to the valid concern that this article may have been subject to meat puppetry and may still be being targeted by other sockpuppet accounts.
The reverts of anything added by Rhinocera are not just valid, but are now automatically exempt from WP:3RR as WP:EVADE specifically supersedes it. Should any other accounts come to light, their edits in any article or discussion, may be reverted by anyone as a means to remove the significant disruption we have seen here from sockpuppetry.
The page protection should remain in place until we are more confident of the extent of manipulation and have a better idea of how to repair the article. In other cases, the article has been stripped down to a stub and then gradually rebuilt to avoid any long term influence to the encyclopaedia due to meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry or COI.
Should anyone have been in dialogue with Meghan Murphy, Rhinocera, or anyone else off-wiki about editing this article, they should declare it on this page to avoid doubt. Similarly Halo Jerk1 appears to be canvassing by email for the related BLP/N,diff diff this too should make everyone doubt the edits being made until this is properly declared and we are clear who has been doing what, or indeed whether even that is subject to unfortunate joe jobbing. Thanks -- (talk) 08:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC to rebuild the Meghan Murphy biography[edit]

Meghan Murphy is a radical feminist known for their opposition to transgender rights and their ban from Twitter for "hateful speech" directed at trans women. Due to extensive manipulation, including that the original text was created from Meghan Murphy's own published profile by a contributor who has been blocked for disrupting transgender related articles, and while blocked has continued to manipulate the article content and discussions using sockpuppets, I propose that the article is now rebuilt. This is being raised as an RfC to gain a wider consensus, partly because local discussions have been significantly manipulated by confirmed sockpuppetry.

The proposal is to replace with a non controversial stub, based on only independent BLP compliant reliable sources. As a community we can then gradually add sources and material one at a time, ensuring that there is a balance of material in line with policy and documented consensus on controversial topics.

Thanks -- (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. The article does not need rebuilding. It is factual with WP:VER. What this article needs is adherence to WP:NPOV (with particular attention to WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:WEIGHT), WP:NOR, and WP:LABEL.
Any editor responding to this RfC who is unfamiliar with this BLP should first look at the entirety of comments in the discussions on this talk page. The revision history can be daunting to go through, so I made finding edit warring on the lead easy to see in the above topic: Lead (or "lede" as some prefer) and edits that led to article restriction. Also, see W:BLP/N discussion: Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists, where this BLP is discussed and the editor who created this RfC is actively involved. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
These remarks illustrate why resetting this article is needed, and how pervasive the manipulation of discussion about this article by a user indef blocked for their hostile disruption of transgender related articles has been. The sockpuppet account's disruption appears in all of the other pages linked by Pyxis Solitary. Thanks -- (talk) 10:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
It's called transparency. Your efforts to close the Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists discussion have failed. Which naturally led to this RfC to replace the article as a stub. (Which is why I suggested that other editors follow the bread crumbs.)
"The sockpuppet account's disruption appears in all of the other pages linked by Pyxis Solitary." So what? The sockpuppet Rhinocera was called out and dealt with on 22:39, 4 August 2019 -- after your last edit war revert on 09:17, 4 August 2019. Are you trying to link me with the sock? Because if not, you wouldn't have associated my name with it.
Furthermore, the sockpuppet was exposed, but the substance of the content he/she added to the lead on 23:26, 2 August 2019 is still valid as it is verified with RS (The Hill, The Scotsman, and Murphy's essay in which she states "While “TERF” has always been a slur, what has become clear of late is that it is no longer just that: it is hate speech.") As such, this content can be taken on by a non-sock editor. There are many bad apples on Wikipedia, but when it comes to legitimate material the edits of one bad apple does not spoil the whole article. Pyxis Solitary yak 23:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC); (edited) 07:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support sweeping rewrites, although WP:TNT back to a stub may not be necessary. Just at a glance, the page seems to rely too heavily on WP:PRIMARY sources, especially in the section on "Writing", "Feminist Current", and on Murphy's views; this naturally leads to an unduly promotional tone. The article as a whole also doesn't seem to give enough focus to her anti-trans views, which (based on a quick search) seem to be the main think she's famous for. --Aquillion (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - As it stand now, the article really does seem to be a promotional piece, and radically editing it to exclude most primary sources is probably the best way to make sure that changes. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This is not a particularly long article. I don't see why any improper content can't just be removed/replaced/reworked to be appropriate. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's no need to take it back to a stub, and it would be unusual to write a BLP without using the subject as a source. Perhaps that's why biographical detail about her family was removed, and that her first radio show was broadcast from a trailer in BC. The article should be written by people who have little interest in the topic so that it complies with BLP: "written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone". Not a vanity page, not an attack page, not full of trivia, but also not devoid of detail just because she's the source. SarahSV (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hell no. Oppose. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. It is totally unnecessary as TaylanUB only has ~8.2% authorship. [20] [better link added] This RfC may be an attempt at forum shopping after the BLP noticeboard. I am not at all reassured by whatever Fæ has in mind as "a balance of material in line with policy and documented consensus on controversial topics." And for the record, I am not a fan of radical anything, let alone this article's subject. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC) updated -Crossroads- (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for the link, it shows that known sockpuppets confirmed by checkuser have created 19.2% of the article text. In comparison it rates me as having added 0.4%. I have not investigated the exact definitions used by the tool's designer. As an aside, even when only examining the highest contributors, the same report highlights a recent single purpose account not previously discussed and some single purpose IP addresses. If the text is kept, these contributions may be worth further examination for obvious reasons. -- (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
You appear to be looking at the graph for "top 10 by added text". That is not the same as much text later gets removed over time. This shows that TaylanUB only wrote about 8.2%, and their sock Rhinocera added all of 8 characters, rounded to 0%. There are no other known or suspected socks. I suggest closing this RfC as the rationale is in error. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesnt make any sense - the article is nowhere near long to require nuke option and reversal back to stub, plus there is utterly no reason why the current form wouldnt be rebuilt from that anyway. There is ongoing BLP discussion and this does look like forum shopping. Let BLP conclude and base decisions from that onwards. Otherwise WP:RS and WP:V applies and if there are suspicions that its being violated, its what we have ANI for. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would oppose on two grounds. First, there is no reason why the article can't be evolved through the normal editing process. Second, it appears that the motive is to remove a great deal of information that explains the subject's POV on topics that are controversial. Personally I think that's far better than an article that would just quote those who are critical of her. Sure the critical response to her views are part of why she is notable but we do the reader no favor when we just post things like "she has been criticized for her views against trans-rights and general transphobia." At that point the reader doesn't know if she is just spewing hateful "kill them all" comments or more nuanced concerns about the possible unintended consequences of new laws etc. We are a far more useful resource when we let the articles present different views on the same topic, or in this case, the views of the subject and the responses from the critics. Some will claim that only the criticism is DUE but that is foolish. We also have IAR. If we have to use a few more lines of text to offer a complete and dispassionate explanation of the views of the article subject I'm sure our readers will forgive us. We can always balance that out with more detailed, dispassionate rebuttals to the subject's ideas. Springee (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
That all may be true, Springee, and I don't advocate TNT, but the current article is far more deferential to the subject than the sources would support. I'm particular, the "controversies" section offers remarkably little controversy, as it includes neither the rather extreme views the subject has often taken nor the widespread criticism of her views from mainstream Canadian feminists. Likewise, the Feminist Current section (which was once its own article) leaves the impression that it is a respected feminist publication, which is not in fact the case. Instead criticism of the subject is attributed to the "left", which is scarce!y the only source of hostility to her views, at least in the Canadian context in which she lives and works. Newimpartial (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Springee, normal editing should be able to fix any failings + an attempt to describe Murphy's viewa is a great deal more informative than simply saying "many (Canadians?) condemn her" - which does appear to be the underlying logic of the proposal. Pincrete (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC editor[edit]

The editor that created this RfC has been topic banned from "human sexuality, broadly construed" articles and talk pages, including all articles and pages associated with transgender topics and issues. As the editor can no longer pursue this RfC or engage in it, should this RfC be closed? Pyxis Solitary yak 06:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I won't do it myself, but it should be done per the clear consensus above and point 2 of WP:RFCEND. -Crossroads- (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Only if the close follows WP:RFCEND. RFCEND offers several closing options but I don't think this qualifies for any of them. Up to the point an editor is blocked/banned they and their comments are in good standing and their comments/RfCs should be treated as if they were made by an editor in good standing. We also have a few supports who's views should be respected. Even though I oppose the RfC we should respect the process and those who !voted to endorse. The results don't look like WP:SNOW to me and while slowed it's too soon to say the discussion stopped. I would suggest letting it follow the normal course. Springee (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy to reopen the RFC if you do so. Singling out individual editors doesn't resolve the entire discussion. Personally, I would prefer reopening the discussion about deleting the article, by basis of WP:NOTABILITY and especially WP:BLP1E: the subject is known singularly for being banned from Twitter due to violating their policies against hate speech. Blackened0 (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of Fae: I notice that you have yet to apologize for, redact, or even acknowledge that you WP:PAed them. You falsely accused them of being homophobic to win an argument on the noticeboard. I'm convinced that you and your brigading friends contributed to their unfair topic ban. When you falsely accuse people of homophobia, you undermine that legitimate problem. When you abuse the rules to get people banned, you give people a reason not to follow them. Blackened0 (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a permanent record of everything posted by an editor. This is the second malicious accusation you've made against me in a discussion. Continue with the personal attacks and you will find yourself blocked. Pyxis Solitary yak 02:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for drawing attention to that comment. I will do the same. You are a TERF. You've posted comments disputing "trans ideology," and you've posted comments that you're a feminist. I don't see why you can agree with those two views, but deny the descriptive term of TERF. To say you that calling you a TERF is malicious is to say calling the sky blue is malicious. If it upsets you to be called a TERF, my best advice for you is to stop being one. Further, apologize and redact your false and widely harmful comments about Fae before throwing stones inside your glass house. Blackened0 (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Good to see that everyone stays on topic here and not drift into the shallow waters, since PA is being quoted around here. Why dont you find a room you two if you cant keep it on the article? Cool? Cool. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
No. RfCs belong to the community not to any particular editor. If the editor concerned was the only one supporting the change, then I'd support closing this RfC as moot. Maybe if it was only open a few hours ago and there was limited participation, then I'd support closing it waiting for an editor who could take part. But neither of these apply here so the RfC should stay open. Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I would rather go with speedy resolution here. The consensus is quite clear, the OP is topic-banned, not much else to discuss. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

_____