Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard

This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.

  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.

Sections older than 7 days archived by ClueBot III.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

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

There is consensus that we should generally provide in text attribution when using the term "TERF" in BLP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

As a pinged editor who just learned of the term TERF five minutes ago, I want to state my agreement with Newimpartial. New terms will always be created, and as an encyclopedia we are going to reflect what reliable sources use. And I may add that there can be a downside to excluding terms used in reliable sources; the NXIVM cult guys fought on that page for years to remove the word "cult", God forbid someone got involved with them because our article was inaccurate.--Milowenthasspoken 16:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The ping list came from #RfC: Category:Climate change deniers. That is what is meant by "At the Meghan Murphy talk page, I said that editors can't even agree to categorize people as 'climate change deniers.' I want to ask all of the editors who commented on the 'climate change denier' dispute higher up to please take a look at this and offer their opinions." The argument you are making about use of "TERF" is similar to the argument people made (and continue to make) about use of "climate change deniers." And as with some people who are climate change deniers preferring to be called "climate change skeptics," some people who are called TERFs prefer to be called "gender critical." Why you, one of the main folks championing use of "TERF," think it should be exempt from WP:LABEL and other rules is puzzling. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Without expressing an opinion one way or another about the issue being raised here. Let me say that pinging 28 editors is excessive. We all have our favorite issues which we think are The Most Important Thing In the World and which we are convinced that Simply Everyone Must Pay Attention To, but the fact remains that those of us who are interested in BLP issues already have the BLPNB on our watch list. Halo Jerk1, please don't ever do this again. Think of the annoyance if everyone with a cause pinged 30 editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Guy Macon. I was following what I saw at #RfC: Category:Climate change deniers and in other places on Wikipedia where a lot of editors are pinged because it involves a dispute or a renewed form of the dispute they were involved in. Some people participate on the BLP noticeboard, but they don't have it watchlisted. I wanted the opinions of the editors who voted on the "climate change deniers" dispute because I see this as similar and I just can't see why the TERF category should be allowed if the "climate change deniers" category isn't allowed. However, I will keep what you said in my thoughts. I don't wanna annoy people. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Not good enough. You need to agree to stop. Wikipedia:Canvassing#Spamming and excessive cross-posting says "Indiscriminately sending announcements to editors can be disruptive for any number of reasons. If the editors are uninvolved, the message has the function of 'spam' and is disruptive to that user's experience". Expressing an opinion on whether we should call someone a "climate change denier" does not make a person involved in the completely separate issue of whether to call someone a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" or any number of other terms. You appear to think your behavior is acceptable. IT ISN'T.
It is OK to ping multiple users (or inform them on their talk pages) if they have been directly involved in the specific issue you are discussing (but only in ways specifically allowed in Wikipedia:Canvassing). That isn't what you have done here. You have pinged a bunch of editors who have never been invoked in the topic you are discussing. Do it again and we will be discussing your behavior at WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Guy Macon, we get it. This is not the kind of thing that will lead to a block after discussion on ANI. They already said they will heed your words. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I would point out that unlike LABEL (which I am not at all convinced applies to the term in question), BLP is an actual policy and it distinguishes between sexuality and religious labels - to which a higher standard applies - and other kinds of categories such as political ones to which ordinary WP:V applies. However, I see that Halo Jerk1 is trying to change BLP too, as part of what looks from here like the largest and fastest exercise in forum shipping that I have ever seen. And unlike the use of reliably sourced political labels for BLP subjects. forum shipping actually is "against the rules". Newimpartial (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
What you just said is poppycock. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
And notifying relevant pages is not WP:Forum shopping. WP:LABEL is a guideline. And WP:YESPOV is a policy. These rules are already in place. I ain't trying to change any rule. You just don't want to follow the rules. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Except that "Transphobic" as a term is repeatedly and routinely used in WP's voice. LABEL is a cautionary note only; as long as a label is relevant and "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", it should be used in WP's voice as well. Newimpartial (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Don't forget where WP:LABEL says, "in which case use in-text attribution." Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
If that were your concern, the appropriate course would have been a {cn} tag and not a forum shop. I for one made sure I had multiple RS at hand before restoring the terms in question. Newimpartial (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
It was a concern, one that was repeatedly shut down. I now understand that you just don't like to follow our policies and guidelines when they conflict with your POV. That's why you are saying that appropriate notification is forum shopping. WP:FORUMSHOPPING is against "raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively." Notifications for a central discussion, per WP:TALKCENT, is not "raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively." That's why WP:FORUMSHOPPING says, "Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions." My notifications were extremely brief and neutral. Your attempts to throw shade are just as poor as your understanding of the guidelines and policies. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
You state "Except that "Transphobic" as a term is repeatedly and routinely used in WP's voice." That is just proving that this problem is even more widespread; it is also a violation of WP:LABEL. WP:LABEL is not "a cautionary note"; it is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow." You also left off some of your quote; labels must be "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." -Crossroads- (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
They certainly are, and I made sure I had them at hand before restoring the terms in question. Also, the best practice is still to include those citations in the body and summarise in the lede, and not to edit war the lede because someone DOESNTLIKE a term that is consistently used by RS for a key aspect of the subject's Notability. Newimpartial (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
In-text attribution does not mean 'citing sources.' "In-text attribution is the attribution inside a sentence of material to its source, in addition to an inline citation after the sentence." per WP:INTEXT. That means we (Wikipedia) cannot call someone a TERF or transphobe in our voice. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
You are still citing a style guide not a policy, so "cannot" is simply inaccurate. Also, discussions to this point have not concluded that "TERF" is a controversial term to which LABEL" appllies. However, it is necessary to resort to "referred to by Global news as a Trans-exclusionary radical feminist", then so be it. The point is not to whitewash the article. Newimpartial (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

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

The case in question at Megan Murphy happens to be the paradigmatic one where the notability of the BLP subject has become almost entirely taken up with her trans-exclusionary and radical feminist views. Nobody disagrees about this reality; the only question is in what terms to present it. Newimpartial (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I looked at her article, as it is the first listed in this section, and it's so obviously appropriate I can't even be bothered to look further. The TERF label is well supported by the sources, and she is quite literally advocating for the concerns of transwomen to be excluded from the feminism. Incidentally, continuing on a thought below, most notable white supremacists insist they are not even a little bit racist and that saying otherwise is hateful. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I mean, yes, the article would clearly put her in this camp, but at the same time, we have the subject disputing this label. We do not have enough history (at most, 7 years) to be able to readily establish if this is how she will be seen in more scholarly sources, in contrast to someone like David Duke who's activities have been well reviewed. Mind you, the lede has it right as to take the label use out of Wikivoice, but this becomes the issue with categories, because that category is implicitly stating she belongs in the TERF in wikivoice, which is absolutely wrong to be doing. That's the whole problem with any category that is based on a label, because we cannot distinguish "factually in this classification due to years of scholarly analysis" and "assigned to this classification because current RSes say so." We have to be rather careful when using these types of categories to make sure that the people is going to be known in the long term for being that label. I just don't think that's there for someone like Murphy in this case. --Masem (t) 05:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

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

  • As an editor who has been personally attacked and accused of being a "TERF" because I enforce WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NOR in the article, I suggest that Administrators take a close look at the many attempts to inject biased edits into this BLP. The latest which began with this edit on 15:12, 1 August 2019. The blog and podcast by Meghan Murphy does not deal exclusively with transgender politics and attempts to describe it as such is activism by editors who have a negative, biased opinion about her. Information about her views on transgender activism and transgender legislation appears in the body of the article under sections "Views" and "Opposition to Bill C-16". Attempts to pigeonhole Murphy as a "TERF" or "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" neglects her history of critical opinions about third-wave feminism, liberal feminism, ageism, male feminists, the sex industry, exploitation of women in mass media, censoring, trigger-warnings, anti-bullying campaigns, and cult-like movements that suppress critical thinking. Murphy has specifically criticized "gender ideology" and this terminology has been supported with several sources, yet "gender ideology" has been repeatedly changed to "transgender rights" (for example: 1 and 2), which manipulates the information with a different "flavor". This is a BLP and as such "must be written conservatively ", "written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone ", without giving disproportionate space "to particular viewpoints ", and "must be fair to their subjects at all times ". Pyxis Solitary yak 04:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Pyxis Solitary, WP is supposed to follow the terms reliable sources use to characterize BLP subjects, rather than the terms they use to characterize themselves (except for religion and sexuality). The vast majority of sources do not use terms such as "gender ideology" - or your favorite, "trans ideology" - but rather talk about "transgender rights" and "transphobia". Our articles in this domain must follow the RS; your obvious admiration for this particular BLP subject should not blind you to that requirement. Newimpartial (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
"The vast majority of sources do not use terms such as "gender ideology"". Are we to understand by this that you have personally researched such a volume of sources that you can unequivocally state "vast majority"?
"or your favorite, "trans ideology"". I see. I have a "favorite". Because you say so.
"your obvious admiration for this particular BLP subject". You really should refrain from responding to comments because you obviously have a one-track mind and it is not neutral. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a BLP of a Canadian, and I have read the vast majority of Canadian sources bearing on the subject and on questions of Trans inclusion and feminism. My POV is thoroughly situated within Canadian legal and social reaLty and the context of Canadian feminism, all of which is quite relevant to this article.
Also, if you aren't referring admiringly when you point out the subject's "critical opinions about ... cult-like movements that suppress critical thinking", I wonder why you used that turn of phrase. It sounds like admiration to me, or at least allegiance. Newimpartial (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
1) What does her being a Canadian have anything to do with this? Are we supposed to limit our reliable sources for a BLP to those published in the nation the person originates from? She filed a lawsuit against Twitter Inc. in the United States. She has given speeches about gender ideology and transgender legislation in Scotland. It is patently absurd to narrow reliable sources down to those published in a particular nation.
2) Try familiarizing yourself with the article before talking about it. Views: "Murphy has identified certain contemporary movements as "cult-like" in their efforts to shut down debates by calling people "phobic" (such as "whorephobic") or accusing them of "shaming" (as in "kink-shaming") if they fail to "toe the party line"." That material existed before I came along.
But more importantly, stop trying to turn this discussion into a personal tennis match. Because with every "personal comment" you show that you have abandoned neutrality in this matter, and are standing on hollow ground. Pyxis Solitary yak 05:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
1) My point about the subject being Canadian, is that the use of labels (even contentious ones) is often nationally-specific. When Canadian sources routinely refer to the subject's publications as "trans-exclusionary" (as centre-right Global news does in this case, for example), it makes sense for WP to follow those sources and the terms they use in the national context where the subject is politically active. (This has been an issue with other Canadian BLPs for terms such as "far right", where some editors have tried to whitewash articles using the significance of these political labels in other media environments.)
2) Please don't move the goalposts. You have accepted the subject's characterization of other feminist movements as "cult-like" rather than using another note neutral word choice; by doing so, you have led me to believe that you support the subject's POV in this analysis. If I have read you incorrectly, I apologise.
Overall, you are referring to as "personal" my comments here which are anything but. Maybe the log of your own BIASes should be more the object of your attention. Newimpartial (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
"you are referring to as "personal" my comments here which are anything but": "or your favorite, "trans ideology" ... your obvious admiration for this particular BLP subject", "It sounds like admiration to me, or at least allegiance." nuff said. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I like how, when your two numbered (substantive) points are addressed, you decide the most important thing is to show why you find my comments to be peraonal. Nice goalpost slide. Newimpartial (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no knowledge of these topics, but we do need to enforce WP:LABEL - however, if quality third-party sources identify these BLPs as such, I see no problem with adding it into the article, noting this determination's likely to be controversial. I'm happy to weigh in impartially if needed. SportingFlyer T·C 06:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

"looks to my eyes very much like an attempt to shame or scare our very few openly trans editors from contributing to trans related articles". And this comes from the same editor who said in the "First sentence description TERF vs radical feminist" Murphy talk page discussion: "By the way, Pyxis Solitary, there is no such thing as "trans ideology". If you continue to spout unsourced damaging nonsense that so blatantly attacks all trans people this way, you should be blocked or banned from Wikipedia in line with the Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions applying to gender related topics that you were alerted to in May this year" . (That last bit refers to this notice she/he left on my talk page about a candidate for deletion.)
Threatening an editor with Arbcom d/s, because I said: "her history regarding transgender issues is that she is not against trans people, she's against trans ideology and transgender rights legislation. It's a fine line, but an important distinction".
The goody two-shoes drivel is pure hypocrisy. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. Could you try to avoid creating juvenile personal fights or forum shopping your perceived grievances please? You were not mentioned in anything I wrote here, neither did I reference any of your contributions. I have no idea why you wish to defend a statement that appears to casually target transgender Wikipedians as being a problem for Wikipedia articles about transgender topics, or dismiss my observation of this being an issue as "goody two-shoes drivel". Thanks a lot. -- (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
You're going to be sighing a lot. Because every time you and I are in the same discussion and you try to intimidate me with threats of Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions, I will make a point of letting other editors know in other discussions we are involved in about what you did and how you like to abuse the system. All your "thank you's" and 'polite' camouflage do not, and will not, hide your true colors. Because editors who are familiar with you may know your modus operandi, but those editors who are not familiar with you deserve to know how you use ArbCom d/s as a weapon to bully editors. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Pyxis Solitary, is "trans ideology" something like "gay agenda"? Because if it is, the warning about d/s sanctions is very appropriate. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
No. An "ideology" is The set of beliefs characteristic of a social group or individual. An "agenda" is The underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group. "Ideology" is a theory. For example: "Personal ideology is a component of personality that guides an individual's understanding of where value lies in life. Information on lesbians and personal ideology is a sparsely researched domain"; and "the controversies that fueled these debates in the 1970s were never settled, and the contradictions in lesbian ideology that reflect them were never resolved".
"Trans ideology" is short for "transgender ideology", and is another term for "gender identity ideology". "Transgender ideology" and "gender identity ideology" are interchangeable terms. Some examples that deal with "trans ideology/transgender ideology/gender identity ideology" (don't be surprised if a couple of editors attempt to shoot the messenger):
–  "$424 million is a lot of money. Is it enough to change laws, uproot language and force new speech on the public, to censor, to create an atmosphere of threat for those who do not comply with gender identity ideology?...Some of the organizations Jennifer owns and funds are especially noteworthy to examining the rapid induction of transgender ideology into medical, legal and educational institutions." (underscore mine)
–  "Transgender ideology is an outcome of the meteoric rise of Queer Theory which, contrary to the claims of trans activists, does not reject biological essentialism, but reifies it by simply reversing the order: It asserts that binary sex — being female or male — is socially “assigned,” not a biological fact; in contrast gender — an individual’s feeling of “femininity” or “masculinity” — is said to be pre-social, emerging from the inner being."
–  "Contemporary transgender ideology is not a complement to gay rights; in some ways it is in active opposition to them...transgenderist ideology — including postmodern conceptions of sex and gender — is indeed a threat to homosexuality, because it is a threat to biological sex as a concept."
–  "According to transgender ideology, a person who “identifies” as a sex opposite to their “assigned gender” should be unquestioningly treated as though they really are of that other sex."
–  "it is also important to understand that, far from loosening the shackles of gender, modern trans ideology often tightens them. Feminism offers the radical proposition that what you like, what you wear and who you are should not be dictated by your chromosomes, hormones or any other marker of biological sex. Trans ideology reverses that".
–  "prior to answering gender identity questions, the children in the Fast and Olson study had current transgender ideology presented to them with no reference to desistance".
–  "gender ideology suggests that people, in effect, create themselves; each person defines “who they are,” choosing a gender identity that feels authentic (regardless of anatomy or conformity to the natural law)."
–  "The concept of gender is not precisely defined, but we are to understand that gender identity is the individual’s feeling of being either a man, a woman, or neither of these. The problem with this is that male and female aren’t feelings...In transgender politics, the physical anatomy of the body can be reinterpreted based on the subjective identity that one has."
–  "several of the more popular answers on the list—critiques of feminism, critiques of homosexuality, critiques of race- and gender-based affirmative action, importance of racial differences in IQ and behavior for social programs, critiques of transgender “ideology”—concern the identity, status, and treatment of people."
–  "Murphy appeared at a sold-out event titled "Gender Identity Ideology and Women's Rights"."
As for my comment in the Meghan Murphy talk page which was a response to another comment, Masem said in Clarification request: GamerGate:
"The point that Johnuniq brings up (which just came up at BLP/N) is exactly the concern I expressed above. To be blunt, talk pages of mainspace pages cannot be "safe spaces" where certain concepts are forbidden. There are going to be ideas and concepts that some editors may feel offensive, but if the context is wholly within the scope of trying to discuss improvements for the article, that's 100% acceptable use of a talk page. The case that Johnuniq is troubling [sic ] because it seems to be aimed to stifle ideas that, while controversial, seem appropriate to discuss. These issues are waaaaay beyond the scope of what the FOF of GG resulted in, so again, I don't think this should be just amended onto GG." M
His comment referred to the statement by Johnuniq:
"I wondered what the background for this was. It appears to be Meghan Murphy where there are disputes over the degree to which the person or her blog should be described as trans-exclusionary radical feminist or TERF. The talk page shows the dispute including Pyxis Solitary saying "she's against trans ideology" which caused Fæ to respond with diff saying "trans ideology" was an attack on all trans people which, if continued, would warrant sanctions under WP:ARBGG. The issue of whether mentioning a "trans ideology" among off-wiki activists is a sanctionable attack should not be decided in a clarification request." J
So, yeah. As much as you may want to throw a former administrator a lifejacket for the virulent response to my comment in the Murphy talk page, Fæ used ArbCom d/s as a weapon and did bully and tried to intimidate me with the "you should be blocked or banned from Wikipedia" threat. Pyxis Solitary yak 06:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't planning to respond to this wall of text, but since another editor has cited its authority as a "gotcha" argument at ANI, I feel impelled to answer it here. What Pyxis Solitary has done here is to assemble a collection of non-RS op-eds and screeds in conservative blogs to make the case that "Trans ideology" exists or is somehow an objective term. This is nonsense: trans people are as diverse as any other group of people (as evidenced by the diverse trans responses to the BC Human Rights Tribunal debacle), and the existence of diverse gender identities is a widely-observed empirical fact (noted among others by demographers) and not an "ideology". Baiting other editors based one one's personal belief that "Trans ideology" exists is no different from deploying "the gay agenda" or "Cultural Marxism" in the same way, and in fact it is mostly the same people who buy into all three caricatures. And what any of this has to do with feminism - the terrain within which this discussion was originally framed - I have no clear idea. Citing paleoconservatives about varieties of feminism makes roughly as much sense as quoting New Atheists about varieties of fundamentalist Christianity or Islam: not likely to be reliable. Newimpartial (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Baiting other editors based one one's personal belief that "Trans ideology" exists is no different from deploying "the gay agenda"....". I see that you like to wield the same baseball bat in more than one discussion.
    So I'll repeat here what I said to you in the other one: "First of all — in case anyone thinks it was — the term "trans ideology" was not included in the Meghan Murphy article. My comment in the talk page was based on Murphy's own words: "I see no empathy for women and girls on the part of trans activists, that is to say, those pushing gender identity ideology and legislation." (in Views.) I've seen "gender identity ideology" and "transgender ideology" used synonymously in many articles I've found. You think "trans ideology" is "a baiting word" ... I don't. I see it as an offshoot of identity politics. Just because someone in a discussion thinks "transgender ideology" is the same as saying "gay agenda" does not make it so." \*/
    The content you call a "wall of text" cites The Federalist, New York Magazine, The Economist, Morning Star, Daily Nous, CTV News, two scholars, and other writings. You may want to dismiss material that you label "conservative", but WP:BIASED is unambiguous: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective....Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs."
    As for the material (i.e. facts, information, or ideas) and its sources, to quote another editor in that ANI discussion: "to develop articles, we may need to in good faith discussion [sic ] external views that are hostile to trans individuals or the group as a whole....WP is a "respectful space"...and we will not tolerate editors insulting trans individuals, but this doesn't mean that we will not discuss material that may be insulting to trans individuals as long as it has a purpose."
    \*/ – comment in Murphy talk page. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
My reply.[3][4]. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
This is all well and good. And I am certainly not saying that editors should not discuss wackadoodle theories on Talk pages, since that among other things would be putting me out of a job. :p. But this must be done with a degree of respect and sensitivity that has not always been shown in these discussions. And if you think that an op-ed in The Economist or on CTV news is a RS for "gender identity ideology" as a "fact": well, you may have another think coming. This isn't a matter of bias, it is about expertise, and the reason I mentioned the conservatism of The Federalist blog is, as I suggested earlier, that it is therefore removed further from having something knowledgeable to say about feminism and lesbianism. Newimpartial (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
My reply.[5] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • If the person or organization specifically states that they exclude trans-women (in some way) as women, then the description or categorization is applicable. If multiple reliable-sources state as much, with adequate evidence and unbiased reporting, then the description or categorization would appear to be applicable if cited and well-sourced in the article itself as a WP:DEFINING characteristic. The description or categorization should not be lightly applied and any disagreement should err on not using the description or categorization absent WP:CONSENSUS. Absent obviousness, just report any obviously relevant information, reliably sourced and worded without WP:UNDUE weight, without using any labels or categorization. Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've gathered a small list of sources on my user page which show that "TERF" is a highly contentious term. It only took about 15 minutes to compile and could surely be expanded. I don't think there are any neutral reliable sources (like a nonpartisan news article) calling someone a "TERF." As such, Wikipedia must not use it to describe people. Some of the editors who insist on doing so seem to have very strong personal feelings and political perspectives on the topic. Rhino (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
As commented elsewhere, most of these are not reliable sources, most are recycling anti-trans lobbying quotes from writers that are clearly trans-exclusionary as they vehemently oppose transgender equality. "feministcurrent" and "quillette" are effectively blog hosts for mostly extremist and self-promotional editorials and are not reliable sources for anything but evidence of personal opinions. The three links you give under 'news' include two BBC articles which appear to say nothing about "TERF" and the IHE article which ends with the opposite of the point you appear to want to demonstrate. This is not a helpful list.
By the way, accusing those that counter your viewpoint as being guilty of "strong person feelings and political perspectives", leaves out the personal abuse that we are targeted with by those supporting your views, such as Fæ likes to pretend that evil lesbians are pulling these experiences/disgusting accounts out of their asses diff, posted by the creator of this BLPN thread. I guess this is the new normal on Wikipedia for acceptable discussion/lobbying when it comes to transgender issues; there will be no sanctions for this sort of targeted harassment. -- (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
You like to assume the worse, huh? I responded, at my talk page[6], and below with sources, but my talk page ain't gonna be a place for us to duke things out. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The simple fact is that these people are identified as TERFs by large numbers of reliable sources. A number of people dislike the label, so I would support renaming the category to a more neutral term such as "Anti-transgender in feminism". Guy (Help!) 13:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
"Dislike" is not normally how Wikipedia decides on what words to censor. What policy supports that approach rather than sources and evidence? -- (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The oldest policy of them all: don't be a dick. It's a contentious label, it requires attribution in text, so using it as a category is a serious problem that can easily be fixed by using a more neutral term that encompasses their admitted and acknowledged views on trans people without being gratuitously offensive. Guy (Help!) 07:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Because calling people "dicks" is being deliberately hostile and unnecessarily sexual, "DICK" was changed to Jerk years ago, but I guess you know that. It's not a policy, it's an essay, it's not even a Wikipedia essay, and even that essay tells you to not do what you have just done, but I guess you know that too. How about sticking to actual policies when lecturing someone while wearing your sysop hat? Thanks -- (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 'Comment If multiple high-quality reliable sources apply a label to a person, then we can also adopt that label. That said: I don't think that we necessarily have strong enough sourcing to describe Meghan Murphy as a "feminist" or a "trans-exclusionary feminist" in Wiki-voice. Both descriptions are contested. We do have plenty of sources saying that her stances on those issues have led others to claim that she is anti-trans, and that controversy is probably the main reason she meets WP:GNG, so that debate should be reflected in the lead. Nblund talk 14:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Per others above, if reliable sources refer to a subject as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist, then our articles may as well. I think the safe choice is to attribute claims of trans-exclusionary politics unless IAR applies. So cases where the subject themself adopts the label or the label is applied by nearly all sources. As for categorization, I'm not sure whether that's appropriate in most instances per WP:BLPCAT and WP:NONDEF. Unless someone is known primarily for trans-exclusionary politics, inclusion in such a category is not appropriate. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
True, but Meghan Murphy is the paradigmatic case if someone whose primary claim to WP:N is precisely that. Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Follow the sources. This is not complicated: apply WP:V and its subsidiary policies such as WP:WEIGHT, and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, just as we would with any other contested political label.
And please, listen to , and drop the hostility to trans editors. All our editors — gay, straight, trans, cis, non-binary, radfem or whatever – are entitled to contribute to wilkipedia without being accused of being POV-pushers just because they ask that Wikipedia articles include all perspectives. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to point out the way the Halo Jerk1's original post singles transgender editors out for criticism, repeating that phrase 3 times. Per WP:NPA, we're supposed to Comment on content, not on the contributor. And we're not supposed to use someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views nor use derogatory phrases based on...gender identity. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The disputes are trans disputes and include trans editors. I said "transgender editors or other editors." Your attempt to frame me as bigoted toward transgender editors conveniently leaves out where I kept saying "or other editors" too. WP:NPA and "comment on the contributor" ain't got jack shit to do with my original post. Good try, though. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Rereading this discussion, a lot of the comments seem to basically say that if RS mention it, so should we. The problem is that the original issue is mainly about if the label TERF or transphobic should be stated in Wikivoice, or attributed, per WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:WIKIVOICE. So, I pinged back some participants to ask this question:

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

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


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

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

Crossroads1, please remove me from your summary, and preferably remove it too. Please ask people to place themselves on such a scale, rather than attempting to do it for them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I changed it to avoid offense. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Alright. So, for me, it's not a simple binary. If reliable sources dispute among themselves whether the term is applicable, we note the dispute over it without taking a side. If reliable sources widely use the term, but the subject disputes it, we state it as factual—subjects can dispute anything, but if reliable sources frequently ignore such objections and state it as fact, we do the same. We might note briefly that the subject disputes the characterization, but we don't permit a simple objection to reduce it to "A and B and C and D and E say..."; at that point, we say what the sources do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade gets it right. This is not a simple binary, and Seraphimblade's summary is a good overview of how to approach this. We follow the independent reliable sources, not the subject's preferences. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm also not really okay with being counted as offering blanket opposition to using the phrase "trans-exclusionary" in cases where reliable sources also use it consistently. Nblund talk 22:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I already made myself pretty clear, and my points were according to standard Wikipedia policy. Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a problem that has not been addressed in this discussion when referring to "sources". Time and again, sources that meet the criteria for reliability are disputed and/or removed from this and other articles with a trans-related subject when said sources are from conservative media (or deemed unsympathetic to a personal POV), for example: this one deleted The Daily Wire, AfterEllen, The Spectator, and Murphy's "Why I'm Suing Twitter" in Quillette, which existed in the content about Twitter for some time. There is also nitpicking about the validity and acceptability of sources, for example: 1, 2, 3, 4 (I responded to #4). There is an obvious pattern at play here, and it is not WP:NPOV and what WP:RS stands for (which, by the way, states: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective ". In the minds of some editors, the only valid sources are those that criticize or support the criticism of public figures such as Meghan Murphy. Pyxis Solitary yak 03:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • What folks have been objecting to is saying things in Wiki's voice. What folks have been pointing out is that quality sourcing is lacking on both ends. Editors in this thread have talked of "third-party sources" and "multiple high-quality reliable sources," but most of the sources on both ends are opinion pieces. This prompted Rhinocera to say "Fae, Newimpartial, when you cherry-pick news articles and op-eds that support your point of view, and ignore or misrepresent news articles and op-eds that oppose your point of view because you dislike their authors, of course it will look like reliable sources agree with you. News articles and op-eds from the reliable sources in my user page show that 'TERF' as a term is the subject of acute public debate, and as such cannot be used by Wikipedia in an objective way to describe someone. The sources I provided are not any less reliable than the ones currently provided in the article. I would like to point once more at WP:BLPCOI, since I believe your strong personal views on the matter are clouding your judgment."[8] Newimpartial's response was "Rhino, by your own account you are citing IHE and two op-eds. Sure, The Guardian and The New Stateman are RS, but per NEWSORG, opinion pieces are not to be generally used for descriptive statements, and you are giving us opinions only. It is also worth noting again that this is a BLP of a Canadian subject, so the way terms are framed in specifically UK sources (where trans-exclusionary sentiment among feminists is stronger, according to our TERF article) does not necessarily apply to the subject if this article. We have many citations in this article from reliable (including mainstream) news organizations; let's try not to water it down."[9] Newimpartial says this, but the TERF page is full of opinion pieces, with some being used to state things in Wiki's voice. If sources for "TERF" are so high-quality, then why does the "Opposition to the word" section have stronger sourcing than the "Responses to opposition" section? And we should really prioritize American sources over UK sources because "TERF" ideology is supposedly stronger in the UK? Who gets to decide that? Opinion piece sources? Where are the academic sources? And does anyone actually agree with Newimpartial saying "It is also worth noting again that is a BLP of a Canadian subject, so the way terms are framed in specifically UK sources (where trans-exclusionary sentiment among feminists is stronger, according to our TERF article) does not necessarily apply to the subject if this article."?
  • "TERF" being considered a slur, a term that is often used to silence voices (especially women's voices) or against lesbians for their same-sex attraction, isn't just being reported on by "TERF sources" or "anti-trans" sources. Inside Higher Ed says, "For some, using the word 'TERF' means calling out transphobia where they see it. For others, the word is a slur that has no place in academic discourse."[10] Daily Nous says, "'TERF' is widely used across online platforms as a way to denigrate and dismiss the women (and some men) who disagree with the dominant narrative on trans issues. The acronym stands for 'Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist', and historically marked a difference within radical feminism. Although its usage is becoming ever broader, one of the groups it targets are lesbians who merely maintain that same-sex attraction is not equivalent to transphobia, another is women who believe that women's oppression is sex-based, and are concerned about erasing the political importance of female bodies."[11] This facet ain't even covered on the TERF page. If it were added, it would mostly like be removed. Daily Nous also says that seven philosophers stated that TERF is "at worst a slur and at best derogatory." The Economist required its writers to "avoid all slurs, including TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist), which may have started as a descriptive term but is now used to try to silence a vast swathe of opinions on trans issues, and sometimes to incite violence against women."[12] The New Statesman says, "The term TERF - 'trans exclusionary radical feminist' has become internet shorthand for 'transphobic bigot'. The odd thing is that most people hold beliefs which could see them labelled a 'TERF'." It says, "At the weekend a letter was published in the Observer, signed by 130 people, which called for open debate in universities and criticised the silencing or 'no platforming' of people whose views are deemed transphobic or whorephobic." It also says, "What gets repeated in public is that the TERFs are simply bigots, attacking a small and oppressed minority out of irrational fear and loathing. They are accused of disputing trans people's right to exist, and of inciting violence against them. If that were true, the no-platforming would be justified. But with very few exceptions it is not true. What gets people labelled TERFs is not their opposition to the fundamental rights most trans people care about. Rather it is a form of political dissent." They additionally say, "In some circles it is considered transphobic for women to question the presence of people with openly displayed male sexual organs in spaces like communal female changing rooms, or for lesbian women to refuse to recognise those people as potential sexual partners (a resistance sometimes referred to as 'the cotton ceiling', a phrase which smacks of misogyny and male entitlement). It isn't just radical feminists who find this problematic: some trans women do too. Is that really just irrational bigotry?"[13]
  • BrownHairedGirl girl said, "And please, listen to Fæ, and drop the hostility to trans editors. All our editors — gay, straight, trans, cis, non-binary, radfem or whatever – are entitled to contribute to wilkipedia without being accused of being POV-pushers just because they ask that Wikipedia articles include all perspectives." Please listen to Fæ, who has repeatedly disparaged, and been hostile to, editors across trans topics?[14][15][16][17] This ain't about not being civil to trans editors, and the trans editors who are gatekeeping particular articles aren't the ones seeking to include "all perspectives" anyhow. The issue is the sourcing, the weight allowed for particular perspectives, and the way the facets are framed. Editors aren't trying to hurt trans people. Masem said it best at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: "To be blunt, talk pages of mainspace pages cannot be 'safe spaces' where certain concepts are forbidden. There are going to be ideas and concepts that some editors may feel offensive, but if the context is wholly within the scope of trying to discuss improvements for the article, that's 100% acceptable use of a talk page. The case that Johnuniq [mentioned] is troubling because it seems to be aimed to stifle ideas that, while controversial, seem appropriate to discuss.[18]. Please read the other comments there too. Seems to me that Fæ often sees offense where it's not intended. EdChem, I meant no harm. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Halo Jerk1, you may have meant no harm, but that third paragraph is some of the most selective quotation I have ever seen. Even for the Inside Higher Ed piece you have not preserved the balance of the article, and for the others you are pretending that op-ed opinions are speaking with the editorial weight of each RS. Where did you learn to do that?? It isn't the way sources are used, at least not on WP or anywhere else that sources matter. Newimpartial (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You are talking about selective quoting, with what you do at these pages with your opinion pieces? Those quotes are to highlight what that paragraph is about, which is that "TERF" is considered a slur by some. It is considered a term that is often used to silence voices (especially women's voices) or against lesbians for their same-sex attraction, and it isn't just "TERF sources" or "anti-trans" sources saying this. We know that you don't like when this is mentioned, but it's there in credible sources. Your opinion pieces are no more credible. You said, "you are pretending that op-ed opinions are speaking with the editorial weight of each RS. Where did you learn to do that?" That's what I want to ask you. Folks have tried to get you and others to see the light on that. Folks have told you that articles should not be based on opinion pieces, but you still persist. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Halo Jerk1, I am talking about your presenting an Inside Higher Ed piece describing a conflict as if it were endorsing the "pro-TERF" perspective on that conflict, through selective quotations. I am talking about your presenting op-eds representing FRINGE (anti-trans) viewpoints as being equivalent in WEIGHT to thoughtful and reasoned analyses by research journalists and scholars. What will it take to convince you that presenting two equal sides in this issue is purest FALSEBALANCE? Newimpartial (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
One more time, we follow the sources. It is not up to you, or me, or anyone else, to decide what to say on Wikipedia. It is up to those sources. We reflect them, not second-guess or dispute them. If the consensus of reliable sources is that someone should be called that, we follow their lead. If not, we don't. If in dispute between those sources, we reflect the dispute without taking a side. If the sources are in agreement, but the subject is not—well, too damn bad, we reflect what the independent reliable sources say. It is up to the sources, not up to us, what we put in our articles. We distill and reflect our sources. We do not dispute or change them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, so you don't understand WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE? Have you not read those pages? The way you are talking shows a misunderstanding of how we follow sources. Is WP:WIKIVOICE not explicit in what we are supposed to do? It is up to us when it concerns how we apply and follow sources. Opinion pieces being in agreement mean nothing since they are opinion pieces and there are a lot of other opinion pieces that disagree with them. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Halo Jerk1, do try not to live up to the portion of your username before the "1". I've been editing Wikipedia both far more and far longer than you, so don't you presume to tell me what I do and don't understand. If reliable sources are in widespread consensus, we don't "attribute" that, because that would itself violate NPOV. If sources are in widespread consensus, we state what they have to say as fact. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, I'm gonna continue to follow what WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE say. Opinions do not become facts because they are widely reported. But you do you. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
"The intro there now, thanks to Rhinocera, says....". Not as of 03:43, 4 August 2019. It is not permitted. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Responses.[20][21]. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
A point: between both LABEL, IMPARTIAL and YESPOV, we are not required to presume what RSes say as fact, if it is believed by consensus of editors to be a contentious statement to make in wikivoice, but per WEIGHT, if multiple RSes use labeling terms towards a person, it is absolutely not appropriate to ignore it, assuming all other parts of BLP are met, namely if the person would be considered a public figure. A label should only really be considered factual in wikivoice if we have years of scholarly review of that person to make it an accepted academic fact that has withstood the test of time (eg Duke). As I noted before, just now looking at the article in question, it is written quite appropriate for a label outside of wikivoice, following all this advice (Her views on transgender issues led to Murphy being labeled a trans-exclusionary radical feminist or TERF, a label which she rejects and considers to be hate speech. --Masem (t) 04:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Masem, thanks. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Halo Jerk1 I have made no comment on you at all. I offered some general advice to without referring to any specific incident. My position / post at ARCA was making two major points: firstly, I was noting that the ArbCom motions do appear contradictory and clarification is warranted; secondly, that it is important to tailor actions to deal with cases of deliberate provocation and trolling, accident / misunderstanding / ignorance, and campaigning. Each of these calls for different responses, no matter the identity of the editor nor the category of their action. Following on from the latter, I offered some advice to Fæ who I have seen on wiki in different situations over the years. I offered no comment to you but since you have pinged me, I will say this:
(1) If you wanted to talk to me about my ARCA post, the appropriate venues are on that ARCA thread or on my user talk page. Pinging me to a BLP/N discussion in which I was not previously involved to comment on a post at another venue is not generally appropriate. It could be seen as canvassing, which is one reason that I'm not going to address this thread at all.
(2) As far as I can see, you have not participated in nor been mentioned in the ARCA thread. Some of your post here seems to be about the ARCA. If you want to comment on the ARCA, my advice is to comment at the ARCA.
(3) Your comment that "Fæ often sees offense where it's not intended" is problematic in that those who are on the receiving end of prejudiced remarks and who have experienced being the outsider and a member of a minority are precisely the people most likely to see prejudice and are best positioned to calling it out. If you are making comments that Fæ sees as offensive, I'd suggest stopping and thinking. Is what Fæ has raised something that you see as acceptable but where you can easily accommodate a request to avoid repeating that comment / behaviour / action? Is there an opportunity to learn about a perspective that you may lack familiarity with / experience of and in so doing become able to reconsider whether your perspective might be worth adjusting? Is this a situation where Fæ is being overly sensitive or even unreasonable in your view, and if so, could a respectful discussion and exchange of views help to reduce tension? Just because you don't intend to give offense doesn't mean that someone else doesn't perceive offense, and as with many situations with differing perspectives, the issue is not so much "am I right or wrong?" as "can we find a way forward that is mutually satisfactory?" I make no comment on any specific interaction that you have had with Fæ or your actions, my comments are general and offered as thoughts for you to consider.
I will not continue this discussion here as it is off topic for this noticeboard. EdChem (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
EdChem, I know you didn't comment on me. I wanted ya to know that editors aren't trolling Fæ or usually being hostile to Fæ at these pages. Your point is taken about going to your talk page about that. A lot of editors have stopped and thought about what offense they may have caused Fæ. Fæ seeing offense, which happens a lot, doesn't mean any offense was there. I suggest you look at threads like this one.[22] What offense were editors causing Fæ? Compare Fæ's behavior to theirs. Keep reading past that thread. If you don't wanna, okay, but my view is that Fæ has been overly sensitive and hostile. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
It much more than my fault at taking "offense" with your edits. You recently blanked your talk page where this was spelt out very clearly diff. You are deliberately targeting me with harassing, false and bullying abuse in order to disrupt discussion about transgender topics. You know exactly what you are doing, and you appear here just to troll others and testing the line of how far you can push it. Here are some examples:
Fæ likes to pretend that evil lesbians are pulling these experiences/disgusting accounts out of their asses. diff
You agreeing with the anon wanting Pyxis Solitary "forbidden from editing this page" because of their exclusive sexual attraction to non-trans women or even for saying "trans ideology" is despicable. It's also homophobic as fuck. diff
Ah, but I mustn't forget. Some of y'all call any lesbian a TERF. I guess Pyxis Solitary isn't permitted to call herself a homosexual female and say she's not into trans women. diff
However, the good news for you is that administrators are uninterested in enforcing the discretionary sanctions that apply to transgender issues, contributors just have to grow a skin like a rhinoceros and put up with this sort of childish offensive trolling like it was a "joke", when it's like having a boot stamping on your face. -- (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Correct, I replied to you on my talk page.[23]. In my assessment of your behavior across talk pages, it appears that you think everyone is deliberately targeting you, harassing you, or bullying you. Never mind how you deliberately target, harass you, or bully folks. On top of this, man, you've accuse me of trolling. Erm, okay. I think other editors agreeing with me on WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:WIKIVOICE is a reflection that I'm not trolling. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: The sentence ""Her views on transgender issues led to Murphy being labeled a trans-exclusionary radical feminist or TERF, a label which she rejects and considers to be hate speech." was deleted and re-deleted. Resulting in the article being restricted. 11:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute statements of someone being TERF in light of linking to the current wording @ TERF which says the hallmark feature is "transphobic hatred". Saying that someone hates trans people because they don't believe a trans woman is a woman (or aren't attracted to trans women, or etc.) is quite a contentious opinion more than a factual observation. WP:LABEL is plain: ... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
As a practical matter, would the multiple and reliably sourced evidence that Murphy is mainly famous for being banned from Twitter, having her legal challenge against the ban fail, and being no-platformed by notable organizations for her actual-proven-in-court hate speech against trans women, be sufficient evidence of "transphobic hatred"? Checking as having your hatred officially recognized in court, seems like the most extreme type of evidence one could expect. -- (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
"Checking as having your hatred officially recognized in court, seems like the most extreme type of evidence one could expect." Wishful thinking. Try reading Meghan Murphy v. Twitter Inc.. Excerpt:
The parties' dispute centers on whether Murphy seeks to impose liability on Twitter in its capacity as publisher...Murphy's reliance on Demetriades v. Yelp, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.Al P.4th 294 is misplaced...Murphy's complaint is not seeking to hold Twitter liable for its purely commercial statements to users or potential 'advertisers.' Rather, all of her claims challenge Twitter's interpretation and application of its Terms of Service and Hateful Conduct Policy to require Murphy to remove certain content she had posted in her Twitter account, to suspend that account, and ultimately to ban her from posting from Twitter due to her repeated violations of the Terms of Service and Policy. All of those actions reflect paradigmatic editorial decisions not to publish particular content, and therefore are barred by Section 230...For the foregoing reasons, Twitter's special motion to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 is denied, and its demurrer to the complaint is sustained without leave to amend."
The suit was dismissed under Section 230. That's it. There is no official recognition of "hatred". And Twitter's motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (the SLAPP statute) was denied. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure, Murphy attempted to sue Twitter, and she got nowhere, super. The point being that she had zero grounds to go to court on the basis of the content of her tweets (the locus of the case), because her lawyers could not challenge Twitter's perfectly correct assessment of her words being hate speech, precisely the hate speech against trans women that Twitter's policies prohibit on the basis of being hate speech against "members of a protected category". The point here is that the evidence was presented in court and the court found no basis to challenge Twitter's actions. What your remarks underline is how even Murphy has not challenged the definition of her publication of misgendering tweets as being "hate speech". So, Twitter calls it "hate speech", Murphy does not legally disagree that she wrote "hate speech", and the courts have no issue with the process that Twitter followed for removing hate speech from their website, and certainly the courts have not ordered Twitter to restore Murphy's hateful comments, which I guess was what Murphy was hoping for.
Looking at the court record, you appear to have cherry-picked a rather abstract point. The court did examine the Tweets in question in order to assess the nature of public interest, so the Tweets are part of the legal record. Without repeating the main parts of the hate speech (let's avoid that please) direct quotes from the court record which "officially" puts the on record that Murphy's words are hate speech:
Twitter claimed that Murphy had violated its Hateful Conduct Policy by posting Tweets that expressed views critical of transgender people and of what Murphy describes as the "notion of transgenderism." ... "It then banned her permanently after she asserted that a transgender woman in Canada formerly named ..."
In the summary the court recognized her repeated violations of the Terms of Service and Policy as a matter of fact.
Still does not read like "wishful thinking" that this is all evidence that Murphy expresses "hatred" for trans women. Unless you have some other actual evidence? -- (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
"Still does not read like "wishful thinking"". Oh, yes it does. Because the court only ruled that the terms of service/policies were Twitter's prerogative to make as a platform publisher. That's what Section 230 is about. Immunity. The publishers are exempt from liability. Section 230 protects the publisher from being sued for content by users. For a reader-friendly explanation of the court's decision: read. The court did not rule on what Murphy tweeted, only that what Twitter did with her account under its ToS qualified for Section 230 protection. (In 2019, legislation was introduced in U.S. Congress to modify Section 230 with requirements regarding neutrality and transparency). Pyxis Solitary yak 16:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment In regards to When this is pointed out, transgender editors or other editors say the the opposing side has less weight and they prioritize American sources over British sources because they say that TERF ideology is stronger in Britain I think it would be appropriate to provide a diff on that, as any such removal rationale would clearly violate WP:RS and should be brought to ANI. Repeatedly doing so, should result to temporary ban. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Clearly, the comment "transgender editors ... say the the opposing side has less weight" is an humiliating and hostile attack against all transgender Wikipedians. It cannot be blithely given a "diff", because is just an attack against a minority group based on "dislike". Why anyone would think that making this claim about Wikipedia editors is anything other than harassment and abuse, and why others, like yourself, sit back and say things like, "oh could we have a diff for that please", rather than asking that person making the blatantly false claim about transgender people should be blocked, remains a puzzle to me. Maybe you could provide an explanation that makes sense?
My acid test would be whether a rationale that supports the statement attacking transgender editors, would be accepted and go unremarked, say, if the same thing were said about Jewish editors must all be biased if they edit articles about Judaism. Thanks -- (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
You don't like it when folks cast aspersions your way, but you have no qualms about casting aspersions others folks' way. Saying "transgender editors" is a "humiliating and hostile attack against all transgender Wikipedians"? You claim I dislike transgender people? Good gracious, the spin doctoring. An editor said it best when he said, "Fæ is very good at finding reasons to dismiss editors and make untoward insinuations."[24] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
We dont have protected classes on wiki and your personal griefs of beefs do not interest me for a single second. If you have nothing to say but just another rambling, just spare your fingers some typing. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Not a personal grief, this is a general question of policy. You appear to agree with Halo Jerk1, the original creator of this BLP/N thread, that transgender Wikipedians editing certain types of article are a problem for Wikipedia. Could you explain what you are proposing is done about this problem? Thanks -- (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Im on wiki for 11 years and if you think that you are first one to use this you are sorely mistaken. I dont answer to you and I have no intention of playing game of someone whose contribution in these discussions border on instigating series of flame wars, with no good faith to be found. Now, tata. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute as per reasons I've given before. Rhino (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute and even then it should be used carefully and this is clearly a contentious and relatively recent LABEL. It appears that we have a case were some of the article subjects/people who are being called "TERF" are objecting. It would be better for our readers if instead of pushing to include a contentious label we were to say "this person doesn't consider trans women to be part of X because Y... this view is controverisal because of Z". As the term is seen as prjorative Wikipedia should never use, in wiki-voice, phrases like "TERFs objecto to the X..." As I side note, in looking through the various related discussions, I've been distrubed by the behavior of several of the involved editors. There is clear advocacy superceeding NPOV as well as impartial tone. There is also a lot of battleground behavior by editors who should know better. Springee (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not that simple. From reading the comments by editors who wish to apply widely the term 'TERF', and the published works of some of those to whom they wish to apply it, I have concluded that these editors are happy to label as TERF anyone who asks questions about men who are part-way through transitioning to transgender women having access to some 'women only' places. It is not an exclusion of all transgender people from all places set aside for women. The label conceals the detail of what is said by its intended subjects. I accept that my conclusion may be wrong, but if it is right, the term 'TERF' is too broad a brush for Wikipedia to use, except with the greatest of care and in limited and fully justified circumstances. So, I disagree with User:Springee's summary of the situation, but not the recommended course of action.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, as one of the editors looking to apply the term TERF somewhat broadly, ThoughtIdRetired, that is not at all my intention. I only support the application of the term where both of the following apply:
1) Reliable sources characterize the subject as both "trans-exclusionary" and "radical feminist" AND
2) The term "trans-exclusionary" has been correctly applied, through a real intent to exclude people of female gender identity from at least some places (or organizations) set aside for women. People who question how to judge the reality or sincerity of a gender identity declaration, or people who distinguish between Cis- and Trans women as potential relationship partners are not necessarily "trans-exclusionary" in the sense I mean. Most of those RS label as TERF or who describe themselves as "gender critical" insist on using pronouns for others based on sex assignment at birth, which almost certainly makes them "trans-exclusionary" in the real sense.
Springee, I may have been one of the "involved" editors you were referring to, so I hope this has at least clarified (if not mollified) your concern. Newimpartial (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute, because RS on usage of the term even in formal academic discourse show that it is highly politicized, a form of dog-whistling: some subset of writers use it as a simple descriptive term, while others use it in a dubious, argument to emotion manner, a form of intimidation and public shame-labelling. It therefore is not suitable for use in Wikipedia's own editorial voice. — AReaderOutThatawayt/c [SMcCandlish via public WiFi] 16:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute per WP:LABEL. I think TERF should be treated as a contentious label, analogous to 'homophobe', 'racist', 'climate change denialist', etc. I think the clearest argument for it being a contentious label is simply the fact that the vast majority of people to whom the label is applied reject it. I can't think of any labels with that property that would be appropriate to apply in Wikipedia's voice. (Disclosure: I was summoned here via an e-mail from Halo Jerk1, presumably because of my previous participation in discussions on this topic at Talk:Julie Bindel and Talk:Mermaids (charity)). Colin M (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
So you are objecting to the use of "white supremacist" and "far right" in WP's voice, when they are the standard terms used in RS on a subject? Because these terms are routinely used in WP's voice even over the objections of BLP subjects and their sympathizers. Per WP:BLPCAT, it is appropriate to do so, but you seem to think that WP:LABEL takes priority (contra current policy). Newimpartial (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a fair question of when a label is a "standard term" used by RSes as to make it not necessary to attribute. I am thinking of something to propose at LABEL or BLP, but there is a far difference in a case where I can find articles from dozens of high-quality RSes (eg NYTimes, BBC) over a reasonable period of time (months or more) which that label is nearly always used, and the case where one has to cherry pick a few decent articles from RSes to justify the term. The latter case would apply here, meaning attribution would be necessary. (Note that in the first, I'm not saying that all those need to be referenced, but it should readily apparent from random news searching the term is valid). As I say, this is only formulating the idea, but I think we need some advice for this. This would also then apply to categorization - if its the first case, you can use labeled categorization, otherwise it is not appropriate to include. --Masem (t) 18:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think "far right" would meet the test I described above. Many people who are commonly labelled as being on the far right would accept that as an accurate characterization. "White supremacist" is a closer comparison. However, I do think its usage is less polarized along the lines of ingroups and outgroups than TERF. It's also arguably more clearly defined and well-understood (such that "X is a white supremacist" is at least closer to the "fact" side of the fact vs. opinion spectrum than "X is a TERF"). So I could imagine cases where it would be okay to use in Wikivoice, if there was very clear and wide support in RS. But I'd err on the side of attribution if there's any doubt. "Terrorist", "cult", and "fundamentalist" are other examples of terms listed at WP:LABEL which I think could be used in Wiki's voice in some cases, if there's strong sourcing - there are definitely subtle gradations in terms of the contentiousness or 'value-ladenness' of individual terms. Colin M (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Quick question - since we are talking about fourt articles in opening, do RS call them specifically TERFs (or do they mention TERFs in regards to Mermaids article)? Because if not, BLPCAT is not there to be found. And follow-up, if they do, in what weight are they in regards to other RS used which dont? I ask in regards to not apply WP:RSUW EllsworthSK (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Just went through Murphy sourcing - the lead provides two sources, neither of which mentions TERF in its abbrevation or full name. So...where is the RS? EllsworthSK (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure I understand the issue and it seems okay to apply the label in most cases where someone makes a sufficient case. In these articles I think that the editors are making sufficient cases. I am not sure about how to make a general rule out of this. WP:LABEL is too short to clarify all situations. I suppose I would like for a group of people to commit the labor to organize a community discussion and consensus statement on this, but then also, these kinds of discussions are getting more frequent and we also need a meta-process for making community discussions more orderly, less work to call, and so that they produce more respected outcomes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't attribute, though this is something of a reductive question—my position is that we shouldn't always attribute. I agree with above, and the comparisons to labels such as "white supremacist", particularly Seraphimblade's If reliable sources widely use the term, but the subject disputes it, we state it as factual—subjects can dispute anything, but if reliable sources frequently ignore such objections and state it as fact, we do the same. Obviously the label "TERF" should be attributed if reliable sources are conflicted—this is true of literally any statement where reliable sources have substantial disagreement—but no, we don't need to attribute something that reliable secondary sources [note: not the subject themselves] agree upon. — Bilorv (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute / Follow what RS says and WP:UNDUE, editors should not, under any circumstance, be adding labels because they feel that description applies. Either source calls it that, and there is sufficient sourcing to not violate WP:UNDUE or it does not. Murphy sourcing does not, it provides zero RS calling her TERF. The Mermaid article sources PinkNews which is not accepted as RS via consensus per WP:RSP. Bindel and Raymond wiki articles dont mention TERF so, not really relevant. I feel like the 101 of wiki, that has been in palce since Jimbo first posted first page, is being forgotten here rather quickly. We dont seek truth, that is not what we do in wiki. If someone has hard time understanding it, read WP:TRUTH. So it doesnt matter if you think its truth. It doesnt matter if you believe its truth. Truth does not have a place here. Only verifiability does. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Please note that there is currently an MfD discussion going to change the name of the category "TERF", with support divided between leaving the category as is, renaming it, and deleting it. There are many, many reliable sources stressing that exclusion of Trans women from women's spaces and non-acceptance of their gender identity is a highly notable aspect of the feminism of many individuals etc., so the argument you have offered may apply to the term "TERF" but not to the underlying category. There is also a proposal under discussion at "Feminist perspectives on transgender issues" to rework the TERF article to include the preferred self-descriptor, "gender critical", on a more parallel basis with TERF, which I also support. The debate over the label should not be allowed to distract from the substantive political debate, discussed in many RS including peer-reviewed academic articles, and in which the label debate is only one of many rhetorical moves. Newimpartial (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
      • In Murphy case there is zero sources that call her TERF. Zero. Nada. Null. There is utterly nothing to discuss, its not even LABEL at that point. Its just violation of WP:RS and WP:V. You cant attribute something because that is how I read it. Simple as that. Sources call her radical feminist. She calls herself radical feminist. We have article Radical feminism. We are done at this point. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute. Per WP:LABEL; and the opening sentence of WP:BLP: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." Pyxis Solitary yak 09:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
» Personal comment re the label "TERF". In my above 04:27, 3 August 2019 comment I state: "As an editor who has been...accused of being a "TERF"...." — you should know that I was called a TERF because in my Profile I unequivocally identify as a lesbian and a homosexual female («» p.s. ... I'm not Queer «»). That's all it takes to be called a TERF by some people and Wikipedia editors. And you should also know that Fæ agreed with the IP editor. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

1. Your statement is undeniable: "Agree with the IP comments". Comment-s. Plural.
2. Yes, you reverted the fake comment and fake signature attributed to me by the IP editor; however, your edit summary provides no reason for doing so. And since I don't give a rat's ass about the IP editor's talk page, whatever you posted in it was unbeknownst to me. Pyxis Solitary yak 12:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
My statement was perfectly clear as to what I was agreeing with because I qualified my statement. As you don't give a "rat's ass" about the IP's user pages, why do you think for one second that I am interested in what you say on yours?
My clarification was explicit diff "Agree with the IP comments, it's hard to imagine a blog writer that is more typically an active TERF promoting transphobic rhetoric. The arguments that you can never use the term "TERF" to describe anyone, has limits and arguing that Megham Murphy is not a TERF or blatantly transphobic is beyond logic and published fact."
My statement does not call you a TERF, my statement does not make any reference about what the IP claimed was on your talk page. If someone actually wanted to say they are a TERF on their user talk page, good for them, why would I care? Unlike others in this discussion I do not put all self identified lesbians, "gender critical" people, TERFs, or trans women in the same "ideology" bucket in order to dismiss them as a class of people for who they identify as.
Stop playing the victim card, it does not withstand scrutiny when you attack, attack, attack and besmirch others, and does not help this consensus process one iota.
Lastly, if you have been canvassed off-wiki in any way, or can shed any light on any meatpuppetry or sockpuppet manipulation, please make a statement. -- (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"As you don't give a "rat's ass" about the IP's user pages, why do you think for one second that I am interested in what you say on yours?" Oh. Are you the IP editor? And your not being interested in my talk page is a gift from heaven, thank you. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
See WP:SPI if you want to make serious allegations against me of sock puppetry and abuse. Otherwise, stop playing the victim. -- (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not you. I'm not interested in creating a reputation for bitching about every perceived offense. I don't deal in narcissistic wounds. Nor am I interested in carrying pitchforks and lighting torches. Pyxis Solitary yak 16:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Bitching? Narcissistic? This is not me "perceiving offense", this is clearly you going out of your way to be offensive. Stop playing the victim when you are blatantly attacking others. -- (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"Others"? Nope. This may be a lengthy, exhausting thread, but anyone can see what I posted and regarding what. You are the only one that used ArbCom d/s as a weapon to threaten me in the Murphy talk page. You've made your bed, now lie on it. Pyxis Solitary yak 16:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Pyxis Solitary, can you source the claim that you were called a TERF "because you unequivocally identify as a lesbian and a homosexual female?" Blackened0 (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Erm, see this[25]? Ain't you the anon who called her a TERF? I mean, come on now, you even just used her signature as a reply, just like the anon. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The IP editor that made personal attacks and harassed me edited the Murphy article for the first time @ 13:39, 24 July 2019‎. The first comment made by the IP on the talk page was @ 15:06, 1 August 2019.
I don't know who you are, but I know this much: you created your account on 15:01, 26 July 2019 and your only user contribution so far is your question -- and as Halo Jerk1 pointed out: you not only used my signature in your comment, you used it in exactly the same way as the IP. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the replies. Based on my reading, the only people making the connection between you being called a TERF and you being a lesbian are Halo Jerk1 and yourself. You aren't able to justify that harsh claim, which you seem to have conjured and then extended to include . I don't think that these are desirable traits for Wikipedia editors, and I suggest you refrain from editing subjects where your personal biases may be in play. Blackened0 (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
You silly sockpuppet.
IP was blocked for 36 hours for the personal attacks against me. Examples
Called me a "TERF": "[[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #7F00FF; color: #FCE883; font-weight: bold;">Pyxis Solitary</span>]] describes themselves as a TERF on their user page. They should be forbidden from editing this page due to their non-neutral, hateful perspective." IP1;
Falsified my signature to attribute comment to me: "As I said, I'm an ugly hateful TERF. [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #7F00FF; color: #FCE883; font-weight: bold;">Pyxis Solitary</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary| <span style="color:#FF007C;">yak</span>]] 12:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)" IP2.
I'll leave it to Admins to deal with the obvious sockpuppetry. Pyxis Solitary yak 01:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
You seem to be avoiding the discussion at hand. It's not a personal attack to call a TERF a TERF. This is why the term should be added to the pages of people who are accurately described by it. Blackened0 (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
It would be fair for you to apologize to . You suggested they were homophobic for referring to you as a TERF, when they did not do that, and that was not the basis for you being called a TERF, by anybody, by any evidence you've been able to share. I also argue that you using homophobia as a made-up trump card to win an argument is damaging to the LGBT community as a whole. I would suggest reading Feminist views on transgender topics#Collaboration against trans rights with conservative groups as it may be relevant or enlightening to you. Blackened0 (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
"It's not a personal attack to call a TERF a TERF." Except most folks in this thread have said the opposite.
Sorry, I gotta chuckle and roll my eyes at this. The anon says Pyxis Solitary calls herself a TERF on her user page. The anon says this even though it's based on nothin' that can be connected to the term, except for the fact that she's a lesbian, a connection that reliable sources say exists.[26] And when this reasonable conclusion is made, the anon says what can only be translated into "Y'all are just crazy. Y'all are just harsh and biased." Good laughs, man. The anon (now a registered user) has gotta be trollin.' Your harassment of Pyxis Solitary should get you blocked. It's like you only exist to harass her. Sad. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
"Except most folks in this thread have said the opposite.": most folks in this thread are wrong. This could be due to your canvasing and battleground editing. If you have an issue, start with Talk:TERF, and once you succeed in changing that article, you can revisit this one. Wikipedia currently says "While these feminists [TERFs] perceive the term to be a slur, mainstream feminists, other academics, and trans people have rejected this view" and "fringe TERF scholarship has built a cultural and intellectual foundation upon which the right wing could, by 'selectively highlighting and leveraging', construct anti-trans narratives that appeal to both conservatives and a certain sect of leftists." The "fringe TERF scholarship" in question is your and your friends, except without the scholarship. Blackened0 (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Pure trollin.' Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for conceding the issue. If you have anything substantive to add to the discussion, feel free to come back. Otherwise, please do not. Blackened0 (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


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

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


  • Yes. Attribute. Refer to my comment here, folks. Using in-text attribution is in accordance with WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:WIKIVOICE. To quote Masem, "A label should only really be considered factual in wikivoice if we have years of scholarly review of that person to make it an accepted academic fact that has withstood the test of time (eg Duke)."[28] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Attribute. per Halo Jerk1, per the nine other editors above who specifically favored attribution (not counting the sock), and per WP:LABEL's statement "Value-laden labels...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." TERF in present usage is indeed derogatory, just like transphobe, one of the words specifically mentioned by WP:LABEL, and so it should not be used in Wikipedia's voice. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Attribute. We shouldn't be using Wikipedia's voice unless there's broad consensus among high-quality, secondary, non-opinion/non-news sources of lasting impact that the label applies to the person. I would honestly say we shouldn't even be labeling in the voice of others unless there's widespread agreement on the term outside the recentist/immediateist press. I really don't see the value in this specific label anyway. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    Also I am opposed to procedurally closing this. I wasn't canvassed. I, like many if not most of the people here, just happened to notice the RfC through my watchlist. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Attribute. I don't really know (being neither a feminist, LBGTQ, woman or even gender dysphoric) whether "TERF" is an epithet or a more dispassionate term. But some radical feminists object to begin called "TERFs". We could see the trendier WP:RS start using the term any day now. But the very fact the term "TERF" is at the center of controversy means we should be conservative and attribute in the text of a BLP when applied to anyone - at least until that controversy abates. loupgarous (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Attribute. It's a BLP and must abide by strict and meticulous standards. Pyxis Solitary yak 09:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Closing admin request: Procedural close This RFC and the BLP/N, both created by Halo Jerk1, has been subject to canvassing by Halo Jerk1 both by the misuse of targeted pings (see multiple above complaints by those that were pinged), and by what appears a covert off-wiki direct email campaign diff diff by the creator of this RFC. Given the context this is a direct breach of Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Gaming the system on a subject where the GamerGate Arbcom discretionary sanctions apply. The much quoted (by Halo Jerk1) example BLP of Meghan Murphy, was subject to significant sockpuppet manipulation of both the article and the discussion of changes to it. The above BLP/N was also manipulated by the same sock puppet account, with the views of the sockpuppet being posted as evidence by Halo Jerk1, as well as the sock puppet account making direct posts. Given that it is impossible to assess how much both the canvassing and the sockpuppetry are affecting the perceived evidence for those giving their good faith opinions, or to what extent the canvassing of selected viewpoints may distort bias, this RFC should be closed as an unreliable consensus process. This does not stop the potential to proceed with other processes, or another RFC, or indeed to reach a consensus through discussion. Thanks -- (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    This RfC ain't the above discussion. There was one complaint about me pinging so many editors from a similar subject (#RfC: Category:Climate change deniers). I asked if it was okay, and I later got a reply that it wasn't. That discussion continued as usual. Also, folks, including you, have specifically rejected pinging as canvassing.[29]. I'm here now because I got an email to comment here explaining my email to Colin M, and I have a little time to respond. I didn't email Colin M to vote in this RfC. I emailed Colin M about the discussion higher up because he hadn't been on Wikipedia since August 1st, and I didn't know when he'd be back on. I didn't ask him to comment in favor of my viewpoint. I realize now that I should have left the message on his talk page for transparency. The email to Colin M, which wasn't about this RfC, shouldn't be used to silence this RfC. I didn't make all those folks higher up say that we should attribute. All the folks higher up and in this RfC saying we should attribute ain't "an unreliable consensus." If anyone really wants to shut down this RfC because of my email to Colin M, which wasn't about this RfC, how is this gonna stop another RfC on this topic, or the folks who participated in the discussion higher up from being pinged to it? We'd still have a lot of the same folks participating. Let the folks speak, just like they spoke higher up. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    Could you state clearly that Colin M has been the only person you have emailed about this Noticeboard discussion or related votes? Thanks -- (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    Updated feedback from Colin M, still calling the email canvassing. No statement has been made on how many people were canvassed by email, see WP:STEALTH. -- (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Drop the stick in your efforts to get this RfC shut down because it's not going your way. Colin M didn't call my email canvassing. What he did do was elucidate folks to the truth that I didn't email him about this RfC, and that it is "much preferrable" to notify people of a Wiki discussion like the one higher up publicly, on-wiki (via their user talk page, or a username ping). He said, "Using e-mail could be seen as a form of WP:STEALTH canvassing," not that I was canvassing. When he mentioned "the same principles apply," he was referring to how the email could look regardless. I didn't point him or anyone else to this RfC via email. I didn't tell him to vote a certain way. All my email said is that he might be interested in commenting in the thread higher up. It was that brief. I've said why I emailed him. He hadn't been on Wiki since August 1st. His contribs show he often takes days off from editing. I can take almost a month off and would welcome an email about a discussion I might be interested in. I've agreed that I should have left the message on his talk page. You want to know if I emailed anyone else. Did I say I did after Colin M's suggestion to list others if I emailed them? Then that's your answer. My very brief email to Colin M doesn't taint this RfC. Man, he hasn't even voted in this RfC! Your concern that I hadn't made a statement since my last response to you is very misplaced. My contribs, which I don't doubt you've looked at, show that I'm usually on Wiki at a certain time (night time, especially late night where I'm at, or very early in the morning). I ain't on Wiki twenty-four hours, seven days a week. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
No, the evidence shows you are misrepresenting the words of others and are now transparently dodging giving a direct answer to a direct question.
Colin M, in diff, stated "Still, I think the same principles apply, re canvassing." That is explicitly stating that your email was canvassing.
Please state unambiguously that Colin M has been the only person you have emailed about this Noticeboard discussion or related votes. If you obfuscate further, or continue just replying by throwing the chaff of counter accusations in the air, then everyone can and should draw the conclusion that you have canvassed other people, per the definition agreed in WP:STEALTH. Thanks -- (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I also read "re Canvassing" the same way that Halo Jerk does, that private emails can look like canvassing. I think you've made your point, Fæ. Halo Jerk has owned up to their mistake and, given that other editors aren't accountable to you, your veiled threats and breaches in civility aren't going to make the procedural close you want more likely. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes per BLP. However this is not the same as saying that the term mustn't be used. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy procedural close: this is the same discussion as the one above, and contributors to that discussion have not been pinged, and there's been canvassing in this discussion and both canvassing and sockpuppetry in the discussion above. — Bilorv (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, Attribute Per my comments and critical concerns previously mentioned. Springee (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It depends If we have 10 or so reliable sources all saying, "Linehan is a TERF" it becomes something of a WP:BLUESKY issue. In that case we could say that he's "broadly characterized as a TERF" [ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref] rather than listing attributions. For more marginal and disputed cases though, we should attribute such statements with respect to WP:BLP requirements and WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Admin request: if you are going to close this, please relocate to "Should Wikipedia state someone is a TERF or is transphobic in its voice, or should such a statement be given attribution?" the responses from editors that did not respond in that section to the similar-nature request for comments. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Overly broad We've had a number of discussions about "derogatory" labels(example) and editors have consistently rejected any sort of broad prohibition on terminology. If a term is consistently used by high quality reliable sources to describe something, then we should follow suit. If it isn't, then we can leave it out. If we want to talk about specific cases, we can have an RFC about specific cases. Nblund talk 14:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, attribute. RS clearly demonstrate dual usages, one descriptive, one politicized/loaded. — AReaderOutThatawayt/c [SMcCandlish via public WiFi] 16:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It depends + overly broad. Generally, TREF is probably too newfangled and jargony. However, if 80%+ of RS covering the subject (including, say, BBC, NYT, WaPo, etc.) state in their lead sentence: "TERF Jane Doe spoke of her twitter experience...." - then sure - we should TERF away as we would with any other label when a preponderance of sources use it. I think this is a bit hypothetical (I don't see BBC TERFing people yet - but...). If we have a significant amount of reputable sources using TERF - we should attribute. And if its UNDUE (particularly for such a value laden label) - we exclude. To sum up - We should TERF someone on the same grounds we'd label someone a "radical Islamist", "white supremacist", "far-left", "far-right", etc. etc. Icewhiz (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Depends but generally attribute unless mainstream. If this were a mainstream term being used in "BBC, NYC, WaPo, etc." as Icewhiz says it might be a different story, but as long as it is being sourced to what could be seen as essentially trans activists advocates, letting them dictate factually labeling someone in Wikipedia's voice as hating trans people (according to how TERF is currently worded anyway) is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. "Is widely characterized as a TERF" without explicitly attributing to anyone in particular may also be reasonable in some cases. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    "essentially trans activists", I think means "trans activists". Of the key writers quoted in the TERF article, Guardian journalist Viv Smythe is probably the most important source. She describes herself as part of "feminist cis women", not radical, not trans, and clearly not trans activist. Lumping all writers who might use the words "trans-exclusive radical feminist" in their books or articles as "essentially trans activists" and "putting the fox in charge of the henhouse" is not a characterization I recognize, nor a helpful one if the issue is improving the diversity of sources supporting the TERF article. -- (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    Smythe is not a Guardian journalist: although she "works for the digital community team at Guardian Australia", she has only written one piece for the Guardian [30], an op-ed about her coining the term. In it, she says[31]

    I do find the renewed interest over the last few years in writing of mine from a decade ago disconcerting. The Terf acronym has long since left that particular discussion (and me) behind, and been weaponised at times by both those who advocate trans-inclusion in feminist/female spaces, and those who push for trans-exclusion from female-only spaces. I have no control over how others use a word (as it has now become) that came about simply to save typing a longer phrase out over and over again - a shorthand to describe one cohort of feminists who self-identify as radical and are unwilling to recognise trans women as sisters, unlike those of us who do.

    Cheers, gnu57 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction and choosing the quote. At least in Smythe's view, the word TERF has been used liberally by people with entirely opposing political agendas. Which is an expert opinion that clearly debunks the popular myth that this is all driven by "trans activists" (whatever they are). -- (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said "trans advocates". It is far from a universal belief that "woman" does not mean "cis woman". So what we have is a plain matter of opinion. So we would be letting one side in a dispute, a matter of opinion, dictate that the other side be factually described as hating. This would be something like saying someone factually hates Rachel Dolezal only for believing she is not black, much more than something like making the more neutral observation that white supremacists hate other groups, which is not particularly contentious. If TERF were not worded to say that hatred is involved and it were clear that TERF were being used by both sides as a factual label, this would not be an issue. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a type of false equivalence. Most racists say they are not racist, or say they have "racial views", it's not a matter of opinion because of that, as racists are judged by their actions and statements about other races not what they say about themselves, we do not stop correctly and logically calling them racists. Separately it's not "a matter of opinion" with "sides" if some people believe that only cis women are women, that's the very definition of denying the existence or validity of trans women, and it meets all definitions of what a transphobic statement is. It seems very reasonable indeed in Wikipedia's voice to use the words "trans-exclusionary" rather than the full on "transphobe" to describe people who lobby for, or promote, such basic and offensive anti-trans statements. -- (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Like I have said, if TERF were sourced differently and at least said "transphobic" instead of "transphobic hatred" I would have much less of an issue with linking to it in a BLP as a fact about the person. Transphobic could be taken as in oleophobic - the question is if that is how it is taken I guess, and how "TERF" is taken vs. "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". It's at least in part an editorial decision whether this term is 1) encyclopedic and 2) more a slur than fact. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
And the trans women who say they ain't women or ain't female, and that the view on how a woman is defined is as ideological as any other ideological view?[32] This source is in the TERF page, but, unsurprisingly, this facet is missing from the page. To quote parts of the source,

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

Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I believe there would be WEIGHT issues involved in drawing out the implications of any such FRINGE view, particularly in the TERF article. On the other hand, an improved discussion of the alternative label "gender critical" would be helpful in my view, parallel for example to thus discussion of white separatism as a form of white supremacy. Newimpartial (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I knew ya were gonna invoke "FRINGE." However, trans women who are feminists and say they aren't women or aren't female should be briefly included in the TERF and Feminist views on transgender topics pages. WP:FRINGE don't mean fringe views can't be included. And if we call these trans women fringe on Wikipedia, we should source that. We can they aren't mainstream, like the Slate source basically tells us. Right now, I think readers come away from these pages thinking only non-trans women think this way. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute per what I already wrote above. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute I don't really know whether "TERF" is an epithet or a more dispassionate term. The very fact the term "TERF" is at the center of controversy and that some people object to begin called "TERFs" means we should be conservative and attribute in the text of a BLP. We shouldn't use it at all in lede paragraphs of BLPs. Also, I'd like to mention that I was innocently reading this page, and voted without being canvassed, recruited in any manner or a sockpuppet. I'll gladly see anyone who says differently in WP:ANI where they can either present evidence of this accusation or retract the charge. loupgarous (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily. If the person or organization specifically states that they exclude trans-women (in some way) as women, then the description or categorization is applicable. If multiple reliable-sources state as much, with adequate evidence and unbiased reporting, then the description or categorization would appear to be applicable if cited and well-sourced in the article itself as a WP:DEFINING characteristic. The description or categorization should not be lightly applied and any disagreement should err on not using the description or categorization absent WP:CONSENSUS. Absent obviousness, just report any obviously relevant information, reliably sourced and worded without WP:UNDUE weight, without using any labels or categorization. Softlavender (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute as a general rule, but I do agree with Softlavender immediately above - there may be instances where we don't need to, like where the person self-identifies (which should probably be attributed anyways.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute: Absent the broad consensus noted by Mendaliv, and self-identification (though that should also be attributed), attribution remains the best practice for value-laden terms and phrases. Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Depends on sources I think Wikipedia should follow the reliable sources with its labels of living persons. Attribution, whether to a specific source or to a type of source generally, should be used unless a label is widespread in reliable sources. The term "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" seems to be used less in the sources and more simply as a synonym for "transphobic". I agree with Softlavender's comment that a term needs to be a defining characteristic used in numerous reliable sources or relatively accepted by the individual being called it. Almost all terms that are "-exclusionary" or "-phobic" or "anti-" are labels that need to be carefully used based on the language used in reliable sources rather than interpretations of the language used in the sources. Existing Wikipedia policies seem to already cover this discussion, unless there is serious doubt as to whether "trans-exclusionary" is a type of transphobia. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute - As per, well, 90% of the people in this discussion. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute all possible dysphemisms Not just this one, but all where the person does not self-attribute a label. I note the historical existence of Womyn-born womyn as a term for a subset hereof, where that label is self-applied. The existence of auch groups is not really in doubt. Collect (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Does anyone actually identify as a TERF? If not we shouldn't label someone as a TERF, we should instead say that x or y has described them as a TERF. ϢereSpielChequers 22:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    I think I agree with you, based on the nature of the term, effectively a political slur. However we seem happy to use other terms that are generally considered political slurs, such as "far right" and "far left" based on third party opinion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC).
  • Decide based on sources. If only one high-quality reliable source calls them a TERF, we should probably inline-cite that one; but if multiple high-quality, reliable non-opinion sources use the term for them in the article voice as if it's a neutral descriptor, inline-citing them all gets clunky (while inline-citing only some of them downplays what is clearly a major descriptor for their views), and also serves to downplay or express doubt for something is clearly relatively uncontroversial. --Aquillion (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute unless the subject self-identifies as such. I happened to see this and was not canvassed but, yes, attribution seems best in line with our policies and to offer the most informative presentation to our readers. Haukur (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't use the term unless the subject self-identifies that way. It's a contrived bit of jargon intended to denigrate, suggest the target of the characterization holds illegitimate ideas. Instead, if relevant to the article, the subject's views should be carefully described and properly attributed, as should appropriate example(s) of criticism of those views. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't use the term for now The primary purpose of this term in common usage is to attack and belittle somebody. Wikipedia shouldn't be giving a platform to this type of language. Does any other respectable encyclopedia decribe its subjects as TERFs? Does mainstream academia use this language to categorise this type of activist? If it becomes a legitimate component of scholarly lexicon I would withdraw my opposition on those grounds. If it become impossible to give sufficient coverage to a subject without utilising the term then it should certainly by attributed. Betty Logan (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Begging the question of whether we should use "TERF" at all. Using it without attribution is certainly not a good idea, but it should not be used to categorize at all, and should only ever be used in quote, reported speech or something very close thereto.
    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC).
  • Comment firstly, just to point out that at present, the TERF description in the Meghan Murphy article is wholly unreffed and therefore fails WP:V. Acres of text are being expended above, while something a rookie editor would be expected to know is being ignored. Secondly the text is in the opening sentence of the lead, but not expanded in the body (where it would give some oppurtunity for the reader perhaps to learn what this neologism means, who has so accused Murphy, when they did so and what she has written to deserve it). And Yes. Attribute. or fix the linked article, such that it is an informative, neutral description of what these women believe and why - not the poorly sourced, thinly disguised, attack page it currently is. Pincrete (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No, stick with existing guidelines; saying that we should always attribute would mean we have a higher standard for applying the term "TERF" than we do for applying the term "neo-Nazi", which IMO makes no sense. As others have pointed out, we call Richard Spencer a neo-Nazi quite clearly, without in-text attribution, and despite his own denial of the term. However, we do this only because the sourcing for it is overwhelming. I think this standard for applying controversial terms is good and makes sense. Applying a stricter standard for only certain terms would not only get into WP:BLUESKY issues, it would be a wiki-wide violation of WP:NPOV. LokiTheLiar (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Masem's take on it guides us on when to attribute. Folks didn't say always attribute. Who mentioned Richard B. Spencer anyhoo? Also, "neo-Nazi" is a much more established term than "TERF" is and doesn't have the same "it's a slur" baggage. It may be misused as a slur, but it doesn't have the same "it's a slur" stuff attached to it. If it did, this would be somewhere on the Wikipedia page. Someone might add something like that to the page, but it's not there at the moment. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, attribution is needed. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Depends on sources I've been thinking on this for a long time hence the late reply and have came to this conclusion. As others have said, we can refer to people as white supremacist, far-right, anti-semite etc even when these people reject such labels if a preponderance of sources use these terms to refer to these people without attribution. There's no reason why TERF should be different. It's true we do not generally (AFAIK) use the term 'homophobe' or 'misogynist' to describe people, however we do refer to stuff like homophobic views Alexander Zaldostanov or sexist comments Ron Franklin without attribution. I suspect that referring to someone as a TERF would generally be better than referring to their transphobic views etc but again sources will help determine that Note that this is not a comment on any specific case, as I have not looked to for any examples. If the term is really as disputed as some suggest, then there should be no examples so it's not an issue. As for categories, if the article does use the term without attribution based on support from sources then it seems reasonable to categorise the person as such. Whether such categories should exist will depend on whether there are enough people to add to it for it to be a useful category. BTW, I do agree this discussion is a royal mess and anyone closing needs to take into account all comments in the various sub threads. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Compliant notifications are not canvassing. Please do not muddy the waters by pretending that there is any evidence of equivalent canvassing that "balances" the actions by Halo Jerk1, this has all been one-sided for those that are lobbying exclusively to the benefit of political radicals against transgender equality, like Meghan Murphy. Thanks so much. If you have received any canvassing emails, or have been in coordination with anyone off-wiki about these articles or these consensus processes, please make a full statement. Thanks -- (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Please note that LGBT has an L as well as a T. That ain't canvassing, Crossroads1, ans my notificarion was quite neutral. Newimpartial (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree, that is not canvassing, whether or not Crossroads favors what they consider to be the influence on this RfC. WikiProject Feminism could be notified too for that matter. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No idea why I was pinged in this. I couldn't care less about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
It's my understanding that TERF is supposed to be the neutral term, which would mean that we wouldn't need to provide in-text attribution per WP:LABEL. Normally, it would be easy to dismiss efforts to treat TERF as a value-laden label, but it's not so easy to do so when the TERF article is worded in a way so as to make TERF itself a value-laden term. If TERF (in violation of WP:LABEL) continues to use transphobic without in-text attribution when defining the term, then it would make sense to also require labeling someone as a TERF to also require in-text attribution. I don't like this as a solution, because it entrenches what I believe to be unencyclopedic wording in the TERF article and for which I am still attempting to address through dispute resolution. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"It's my understanding that TERF is supposed to be the neutral term". I don't know who has been saying that "TERF" is a neutral term, and I don't know what selected sources are used to support that allegation, but it is certainly not a "neutral term" for many. There are those who consider it a slur and a derogatory language, as also found here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here. (there's more, but I think these are enough). Pyxis Solitary yak 09:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't have receipts, but the supposed "neutral" alternative is "gender critical feminist" and, if my own understanding and the TERF article are any guides, that term doesn't seem to pass WP:COMMONNAME muster. This relates to something said earlier, that Most racists say they are not racist, or say they have "racial views" and that we do not stop correctly and logically calling them racists. Maybe they can elaborate a little more on that, but it seems like at Wikipedia that we actually do stop calling them racists here at Wikipedia, per WP:LABEL. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
If someone has a comparative case with a consensus about how we write about notable racists, that would be a useful comparison to link to here. Happy to be corrected, I do not follow those exact topics. -- (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Are you asking for the discussion behind that component of WP:LABEL? Or are you asking about specific high-profile racists? For the latter, just think of a racist and see if their Wikipedia page uses the term "racist" without attribution. David Duke, Strom Thurmond, and Donald Trump all avoid using the term "racist" without attribution. I'm sure you can think of others to check. I wouldn't know where to check for the former. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
It's asking for an exemplar like "racist", if a consensus process can be referenced and would be useful to consider, because we might find a better way of doing this.
I am aware of the Trump article changing this week, so the weasley "Racial views" as a subtitle became the factual and more meaningful "Appeals to racism and xenophobia". It's interesting, but there was not an especially smart process behind that discussion. -- (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh I see. You're looking more for discussions behind these choices that can help us here. I'm not sure where to find those without doing a lot of digging. Maybe someone else can point us in the right direction. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ƶ§œš¹ that our own article TERF complicates the issue by defining "TERF" in terms whose neutrality is disputed. There's common sense evidence the term is capable of being interpreted pejoratively, and should be attributed in BLPs, generally. Our article Meghan Murphy is complicated by the subject's own public statements regarding trans women. Even so, WP:BLP says we ought to proceed conservatively and not lend wikivoice to either side in the debate over whether Meghan Murphy is indeed "trans-phobic", as our article TERF defines the term. Plenty of time after the dust clears and a broad spectrum of reliable secondary sources use the term to do that.
Also plenty of room to present both sides (of whether Meghan Murphy's a transphobe or merely excluding them from the definition of "feminist" as she seems to do with men) below the lede paragraph.
Not saying anything contentious in wikivoice about the subject of a BLP doesn't hurt anyone. I'm surprised there's even discussion about that here. --loupgarous (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
There's also the trans women who say they ain't women or ain't female, and that the view on how a woman is defined is as ideological as any other ideological view.[36] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Fringers gonna FRINGE. Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The source does let us know that these trans women aren't mainstream, but, going by what I said higher up, WP:FRINGE don't mean fringe views can't be included. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment on Raymond I agree with others who think that the sourcing for Murphy is weak, but I think there are other cases where "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" is a consistent description in the sources. Here are some examples of descriptions of Janice Raymond's work that appear in high quality sources:
  • Sally Hines (Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Feminism): what has recently become to be known as a 'TERF' (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) perspective is evident in the much cited 1979 book by Janice Raymond.."
  • Rachel McKinnon(Philosophy and Phenomenological Research) TERFs such as Janice Raymond equate trans women’s very existence with rape..."
  • Cameron Awkard-Rich (Signs): Thus, the amenability of Raymond’s transexclusionary radical feminist (TERF) stance to government policy contributed to a decades-long legal exclusion of trans health care from public insurance
  • Shannon Weber (Journal of Lesbian Studies) Raymond’s writings, while remaining the most well-known feminist set of arguments against the inclusion of trans women in feminist movements, have been joined by the work of a chorus of other anti-transgender feminists known as TERFs, or “trans-exclusionary radical feminists
  • Columbia Journalism Review: But Goldberg ignores the legacy of harm Raymond and other trans-exclusionary feminists have done to trans women, which no doubt informs angry comments on Tumblr
As I've mentioned before, I don't think the term "TERF" is helpful because it's jargon. But Raymond is a radical feminist who is distinguished primarily by her belief that trans women should be excluded from the feminist movement/from womanhood generally. The precise wording of that description is up for debate, but calling her a "radical feminist" (full stop) is no more supported by the sources than calling her a trans-exclusionary radical feminist. Nblund talk 17:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Thats good sourcing, but I would point out couple things. McKinnon as source can be easily source of dispute given the publicized fight regarding these issues with eg Martina Navratilova among others. CJR carefully within wording avoids the labels as such, rather explores the term and observes it from both sides. Though I can see why it could be used as a source. Hines, Rich and Weber sources seems very solid and as such as long as WP:UNDUE doesnt appear, or MOS:LEADNO, the term within article seems quite well sourced without any dispute. At that point I guess we roll back on BLP - is TERF applicable source if within RS? In my opinion, unless consensus differs, yes. Or is it something that should be applied only when its self-descriptory? I generally tend to no on these terms. If the later should be applied, concurrent discussion about merger of Radical feminism with TERF should be opened and arguments should be made there as these feminists who have that label generally see themselves as subsection of former. That would also possible solve this issue by LEAD desciption with RadFem, but redirect to TERF subsection. Just an idea, tho. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Rachel McKinnon, a trans woman who is embroiled in what has become known as the TERF wars, and in the debate over trans women competing in women's sports,[37] is hardly impartial. WP:BIASED tells us that sources can be biased and still be used, but, man, what a biased source she is. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I didn't do too much digging on the quality of the journal, but it's a peer reviewed publication from a noted scholar, and I definitely don't think we're in a position to disqualify sources just because they're written by trans people. Eliminating scholars who are critical of trans exclusionary feminism seems like it would eliminate pretty much every scholar who has commented by virtue of the fact that the overwhelming majority of feminist academics see Raymond's work as extreme and dated (at best). Nblund talk 04:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I ain't saying that the views of trans people should be discounted. I'm not like some who try to disqualify sources because of their personal POV. Like EllsworthSK, I'm just saying that she's been embroiled in what has become known as the TERF wars, and in the debate over trans women competing in women's sports, and is far from impartial. There's no need to point me to WP:BIASED since I pointed it out myself. As for "the overwhelming majority of feminist academics see Raymond's work as extreme and dated (at best)," I'd rather see a source explicitly say that. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not following this thread particularly closely, so I have no idea who the "some people" you're referencing are, but I suspect it doesn't really matter for this discussion. Kathleen Stock (one of McKinnon's critics) says: "that in gender studies, queer theory and mainstream feminist philosophy, “the position that trans women are literally women is now an article of faith, disagreement with which is seen as a sign of moral degeneracy, rather than a matter over which reasonable people with different theories can disagree.". I think she's basically right, and I don't see anything to indicate that Raymond's views are taken particularly seriously today. Nblund talk 14:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
You agree with her on what? Where she says "rather than a matter over which reasonable people with different theories can disagree"? Considering the political nature of these topics, and folks I see disagreeing with one another (including trans folks disagreeing with other trans folks), I'm not taking anyone's word for it on Raymond or anyone else. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with her that the claims like "trans women are actually just men" (which is essentially Raymond's view) is considered dated and offensive in the fields that Raymond's work is addressed toward (academic feminism, gender studies, etc.) Nblund talk 15:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • FYI: an RfC to replace the Meghan Murphy biography as a "non controversial stub" has been requested: RfC to rebuild the Meghan Murphy biography. Pyxis Solitary yak 01:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ugh! This "discussion" has become such a trainwreck that I can't even see the best place to add my comment among the mangled wreckage so I'll just put it here at the bottom and add to the verbiage.
    There is nothing special about these terms. The usual rules for BLPs, and articles in general, should apply. All article content needs to be validly referenced. We should take care not to refer to anybody as a transphobe or a TERF without valid referencing but we should not be afraid to refer to them as such when the references support it! Sure, they won't like it, but then the white supremacists don't like being referred to as "white supremacists" and will offer a range of euphemistic alternative terms they would prefer. So long as the references support what we say, this is simply not a consideration for us.
    There are several analogous situations to guide us: We should treat "transphobe"/"transphobic" the same way we treat "homophobe"/"homophobic" and "Islamophobe"/"Islamophobic". "TERF" is a little more problematic. One insight I would like to offer (and I apologise if this is already buried somewhere in the TL;DR above) is that "TERF" is a term with its meaning in limbo. Sometimes it literally means what the acronym implies (i.e. a radical feminist who is transphobic) and other times it is simply used as a synonym for "transphobe" without really meaning to suggest that the subject is any sort of feminist. This has come about partially due to natural evolution of language but mostly because a lot of transphobes use insincere feminist sounding rhetoric to confuse the issue and mask the real basis for their transphobia. For this reason I suggest that we should prefer the terms "transphobe"/"transphobic" where that is all we mean to say and only use "trans exclusionary radical feminist" (set out in full) where we have references to show that the subject's transphobia coincides with a general radical feminist standpoint, not purely on trans issues, i.e that we need to show references for both "trans exclusionary" and "radical feminist" separately.
    We should also take care not to conflate "TERF" with "radical feminist" in general. That would be inaccurate and unfair on the radical feminists who are not TERFs. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Begging the question of whether we should use "TERF" at all. Using it without attribution is certainly not a good idea, but it should not be used to categorize at all, and should only ever be used in quote, reported speech or something very close thereto.
    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC).

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

Tim Ball[edit]

A brief statement of the terms of order in the British Columbia court registry has been used as the sole source for the outcome of the Michael E. Mann v. Tim Ball libel suit, in the absence to date of a reliable secondary source or of the written decision on the case. WP:BLPPRIMARY specifically requires us to exercise extreme caution in using primary sources, and not use court records to support assertions about a living person. Since the decision has been widely misreported and its meaning is disputed, baldly stating the case has been dismissed gives undue credence to assertions about Mann.

The 22 August 2019 registry states that the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, but its significance is contested. Mann has tweeted his lawyer's statement that Ball had requested the lawsuit be terminated for delay, and there was no finding on the validity of the case. The secondary source cited at the same time as the registry entry was added says "According to the media and statements from Michael Mann and his lawyer, on August 22, 2019, the court dismissed the case on account of delay." This was contested at, and as it presents only hearsay it's reasonable to dismiss this as a reliable secondary source for the decision on the case.

Background: Mann's work has been disputed in the "hockey stick controversy" since 1999 1998, numerous investigations and scientific papers have reaffirmed its validity, and the propriety of his conduct. Ball made remarks about Mann in a 2011 interview published by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, and Mann issued his libel suit. In July 2019 he settled with the Frontier Centre after they apologized for the "untrue and disparaging" comments. Blogs about the court's August ruling were used for edits to the Wikipedia biographies, e.g. [38][39][40], and a talk page post cited the blog Watts Up With That? which promotes climate change denial.[41]

To give proper coverage, we need the written decision or a good secondary source. . . dave souza, talk 14:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC) (1999 corrected to 1998 dave souza, talk 11:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC))

I disputed the worth of dave souza's insertion re the Frontier Centre apology on the Tim Ball talk page. However, dave souza is right that a court document is not a proper source for stating that the claim made by Mr Mann was dismissed, and the court's wording ("Costs will follow the event ...") is not for us to interpret. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Fully agree with this assessment, thanks for clarifying these points. . dave souza, talk 11:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I also objected to the "untrue and disparaging" part of the article. Source refers to all accusations against Mann published by FCPP 2011 and 2012 and should not be used to imply "untrue and disparaging" on all of Balls accusations. I actually object to using FCPPs apology to cast any kind of judgement on Ball. On topic of case dismissal, reason for dismissal is unclear and disputed. I don't see why the fact that the case is dismissed can not be in the article as it's not disputed. Not giving "undue credence to assertions about Mann" seems like a political bias to me. Let me point to more biased wordings in our little paragraph; grounds for the case are simplified to hide it's really about the hockey stick controversy. Rakeroot (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The "untrue and disparaging" wording, as reported by the Mother Jones / National Observer source, was part of "retraction & apology" forming the basis of settlement of Mann's "claims in BC Supreme Court against The Frontier Centre for Public Policy Inc." – he added that he had not settled his "claims against Tim Ball, who remains a defendant in that lawsuit". The lawsuit was specifically about the publication of the interview with Ball, and it's wild original research to claim that the wording in some way refers to words by others. The Courthouse News Service report made it clear that the allegations were about Mann's part in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy in particular, which of course was related to the hockey stick controversy – we could add the latter to the Ball article using the Mother Jones source, but it's really background rather than a prominent part of this case. Unfortunately Rakeroot chose to edit the article on the basis of original research, so I've undone that. . . dave souza, talk 11:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Rakeroot re "untrue and disparaging" for reasons given on the Tim Ball talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Think this has been resolved, as discussed extensively at Talk:Tim Ball. . . dave souza, talk 09:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it is resolved. You pushed your arguments alone and keeps undoing changes. I still disagree. I'm disappointed in the Wikipedia community for not stepping forward on either side. If none steps forward I will just assume Wikipedia has totally folded for the views and methods of user:JohnMashey carried out by user:Dave souza. This is sad. Rakeroot (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia's about working together in compliance with policies, and I don't think you've got the hang of WP:WEIGHT or of policy on giving "equal validity" – Jimbo rather harshly summarised it as "What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse.' It isn't." Mann is a very reputable scientist, John Mashey is also reputable, Ball is mainly known for rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change. If you want to disagree with the reliable source for Ball's interview comments being "untrue and disparaging", you need to support that with good reliable sources, giving due weight to mainstream scientific opinion. . . . dave souza, talk 11:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The sitaution is problematic because we don't have any reliable secondary sources, and the only primary source we have isn't great. What does seem clear is that Tim Ball has in some sense won the most recent round, because if he had not then why would Michael Mann be planning to appeal? But precisely what he has won is difficult for us to say, and why he has won is absolutely impossible for us to say, given the sources currently available. Personally I think we do have enough sources to make a very annodyne statement, indicating an interim judgment in Ball's favour but even that is tricky to phrase. With luck things will clarify within the 30 day appeal window that Mann has referred to, so I'm happy with giving it another fortnight before we rush to precipitate decisions. But we can't simply not report this development for ever, and will have to do something at some point. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The situation where we lack reliable secondary sources is confined to the outcome of the trial, and the basis of its dismissal: obviously we all hope reliable sources will be available soon. I don't see there being any deadline to publish before good sources are found, . . dave souza, talk 11:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that if there is no appeal then we will eventually have to report the bare fact of the outcome, because otherwise we would be allowing an incorrect statement which casts an individual in a negative light (that Ball is still a defendant in a libel case) to stand when we know it to be untrue. Since an appeal would reopen the situation I see no reason to rush into making edits now. But if the current decision stands then we can't simply ignore it for ever. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The basic fact is that we don't have adequate sources. We've got primary sources for stating that the court dismissed the action against Ball on grounds of delay, stating anything else gives support to widespread fringe allegations which cast Mann in a negative light. If we rely on the court document to say the case has been dismissed, we can also find the court document in which Ball requested that the lawsuit be terminated for delay, but I think it's better to cite a reliable seoncdary source. . . dave souza, talk 13:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Jonathan A Jones! I really needed to hear another voice on the subject. I probably don't see the same meaning of winning or losing form the statement that the case is dismissed and I am certainly not the right person for tricky phrases. I'm happy as long as I know the subject isn't hijacked by a few verbal masters. I might as well apologize for the drama, I was just frustrated by arguing with only one person all the time. Now what about the "untrue and disparaging" part? I still think it's misplaced. To me, it looks unprofessional, blog style propaganda. Like "ah, they just had to put that in there to tell me how to think". To be clear I don't argue it's valid (or not). But it gets me wondering if that's what Wikipedia is for, to tell us what to think. It's done in a familiar way where it smears all over the subject and can't be challenged too. Rakeroot (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
dave souza, I think what you are trying to do here is pushing Wikipedia policies to the limit and beyond. Your overall standpoint is sound, mainstream and helpful for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia; we don't want to give fringe ideas unreasonable amount of space and we do want to make clear they are outside mainstream views and/or outside current research findings. What we don't want to do is push certain ideas or be our own judges to certain ideas, this is especially true inside BLP. Even though you might argue the political environment calls for this, this is eroding Wikipedias reputation, reliability and usefulness. Your way of implying "untrue and disparaging" and your unwillingness to report the case is dismissed are good examples of judging and pushing, totally out of place too. If you want to improve Wikipedia, improve the articles you care about, embrace the subjects you like, make sure the fringe is not going overboard but you can't use any and all opportunity to push for your point of view, mainstream or not. Rakeroot (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, I've been content to show that "On 22 August 2019 the court dismissed the action against defendant Ball, on grounds of delay." The secondary source for that has since been agreed as inadequate, leaving us with primary sources for the statement. So better secondary sourcing is needed. . . dave souza, talk 13:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I find it in order to write "On 22 August 2019 the court dismissed the action against defendant Ball." This is subject-specific common knowledge that normally wouldn't need any source. We actually have a lot of sources, including primary source, that all confirms. Actually, I argue we should publish this information as soon as possible with reasons well put by Jonathan A Jones that we are "allowing an incorrect statement which casts an individual in a negative light (that Ball is still a defendant in a libel case) to stand when we know it to be untrue". I find this a serious violation of BLP policy and will edit soon. But then again, some common understanding would be needed as to why sources are not top standard here.
Writing "on ground of delay", on the other hand, would get us in trouble. There is probably a tug of war going on right now as to what should go in the judges statement. Maybe they will drop the delay part altogether as it has been the speculation that Mann caused the delay by failing to hand in some kind of numbers. There you go... We shouldn't get in to these kind of speculations. Rakeroot (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I would be content wth that minimal statement, but no more than that minimal statement, supported by the primary source. But as I said before I see no hurry to do this until the window for appeals has closed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
As I understand you suggest we wait because of WP:WEIGHT? Rakeroot (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I suggest we wait because (1) the situation might well change rapidly (if Mann appeals the the case is once more ongoing and we are merely omitting a detail rather than in effect misreprsenting a clear outcome, and (2) the use of a primary source is not ideal (it seems to me that it is arguably acceptable here under the second paragraph of WP:BLPPRIMARY, but still not ideal) when there is reasonable hope a good secondary source might appear once the case outcome is finally clear. But this is a judgment call, and reasonable people mught well disagree. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
1. No. This will not change. If it is dismissed it is dismissed. If Mann appeals we just add that. And probably that the case has moved to Canada Supreme Court, right? 2. As discussed earlier... Rakeroot (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
On which subject I wonder what people think about this opinion piece [42] from The Seattle Times as a possible secondary source. I would prefer a news item to an opinion piece but it's the best I have found so far. Apologies if it has been discussed already. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I like it in the way that it is coming from the same line of thoughts as Tim Ball himself as opposed to other sources used here. Downside is, it doesn't give us the date of dismissal. Rakeroot (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Jonathan A Jones, yhanks for looking that out, problem is that the Seattle Times piece is not just an opinion piece, it's one presenting a fringe view with obvious falsehoods. For example, "Ball asserted a truth defense and asked for access to the data and calculations underlying the 'hockey stick' analysis. ... Mann refused to produce the documents" – as shown in hockey stick controversy and discussed at Talk:Michael E. Mann#Data and methods, these were made public at the outset in accordance with National Science Foundation requirements, and by 2005 had been supplemented by the Fortran program that's Mann's property. Sources need a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.
@ Rakeroot, we can't say what line of thoughts Tim Ball has, since he seems to have published his viewpoint on the blog Watts Up With That? which is notoriously unreliable. . . dave souza, talk 20:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
How do you tell it's fringe? Some people, including Ball, states they have called for Mann to hand in something more to this case. Surely this alone doesn't make it fringe? I have seen something about R2 regression numbers but I don't know. I got the impression denying CO2 as greenhouse gas and denying AGW is fringe here but other than that? Rakeroot (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
The Seattle Times piece states that Ball claimed a truth defence and that statement can't be WP:FRINGE unless there are good secondary sources asserting that his defence took some other form. Reporting that somebody holds fringe views obviously does not make a source fringe. The next statement that the court "dismissed Mann’s libel case " is simply a statement of fact and entirely consistent with other sources. I'm not sure about the second half of that sentence "with prejudice and ordered him to pay Ball’s legal costs" though it is perfectly consistent with Ball's claims elsewhere. The only troubling sentence is "Mann refused to produce the documents, even when ordered by the court", and I certainly wouldn't use this source for claims about Mann or the reason for Ball's (current) victory. But I really don't see that this renders the source entirely unusable for a siple matter of fact which is also supported by a primary source. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Johathan, sorry to be a bit slow coming back on this. The Seattle Times opinion piece is essentially a political article which has reiterated climate change denial themes (as published in recent blogs) in support of its main argument that climate science could be a hoax, so political ideas for tackling climate warming issues should be dismissed. That's what makes it fringe, at least in science, whether or not there's a political majority resisting any action. The author's not been careful (or objective) about checking facts, so using this as a source would promote a fringe view in articles. Fair point that I've not seen evidence whether or not Ball initially claimed a truth defense, the current issue is that according to Mann and his lawyer the dismissal was due to delay after Ball pled his problems and lack of influence. Their version is supported in a Daily Kos article, but don't think that's sufficiently reliable. Am hopeful we may find a better secondary source soon, . . dave souza, talk 17:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The Seattle Times and the Mother Jones[43] articles together give a good coverage, plus the Frontier Centre for the original interview, plus the [44] for the date and we should be fully covered. Of cause we have to be careful what to use from the different sources and weigh it properly and the paragraph have potential. We just need some more views on the topic below to get on with it. Rakeroot (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC) Oh, and courthousenews[45] should stay as source too. Rakeroot (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Opinion columns are reliable sources only for the attributed opinion of the author, and may never be used to support factual statements related to living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Tailing 56% of paragraph is in place because of WP:WEIGHT or was it WP:GEVAL? I don't see how these policies apply. Please, tell me why we need more than half of the paragraph to give weight by citing another defendants apology. The first 44% is a well written and on the point summary of the base of the case. In there we have "should be in the State Pen, not Penn State", the accusations that form the very basis of this case and as I understand it, the opinion we need to weigh with the mainstream view of the opposite opinion. I don't think we should even try to give this weight, partly as it is central in this court case. If consensus us that we should apply weight it can surely be done in a more on point fashion. Geeze, listen to yourself, "untrue and disparaging", "...wrong [to state that] Mann did not comply with ethical standards"... And it still doesn't give proper weight as it is just an opinion of another defendant. I say we have some options here depending on if we find any other value in the fact that another defendant settled with Mann. We could drop everything about the other defendants (there are actually three) or we may state that "On 7 June 2019 the Frontier Centre For Public Policy published a retraction and apology" and might add that "This settled Frontier Centres part of the case". Other than that, Frontier Centres endeavors in this case should be in the margin, this is Tim Balls BLP after all. If you all think we need to give some kind of weight, please specify what is weighed and weigh it with some good information from a good source. We all know what an apology looks like, leave it in the source. Rakeroot (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
We can certainly review specific proposals for rewording on the article talk page, though of course policies have to be met, but the main issue here is the lack of a reliable secondary source. As for there being three defendants, the anonymous interviewer referred to as "John Doe" is the obvious third defendant. . . dave souza, talk 20:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Also, the basis of settlement of Ball's co-defendants is acceptance that the interview statements were untrue and disparaging, and that Mann complied with ethical standards, so we shouldn't leave that out. What we need is well sourced clarification of Ball's own defense. . . dave souza, talk 20:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
No. Main issue here is the purpose and possible violation of WP:NPOV of the tailing part of the paragraph. Unless you are asking for a good "reliable secondary source" to the claim of "untue and disparaging". Are you? I deliberately separated the issues. From you, Dave souza, I would very much want a motivation to WHY the "the basis of settlement of Ball's co-defendants is acceptance that the interview statements were untrue and disparaging" calls for not leaving their exact wording of their apology out. We could simply argue that the basis of settlement was their apology. Please link policies you see fit and we might come to an understanding. Other than that I am mostly interested in other editors views. I think I can see that you want to defend Michel Mann and you are doing a pretty god job but we need some one else's view on this. Rakeroot (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I have a proposal on the article talk page now. Rakeroot (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Rakeroot, will come back to you on that. Hope more editors show an interest! As outlined above in reply to Jonathan, there are considerable problems with the Seattle Times political opinion piece giving undue credence to misinformation, so am hoping to find better secondary sourcing giving due weight to mainstream science. . . dave souza, talk 18:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The following seems to be a good source in the interim, until the written court decision is available. Pohlmann, Dirk (3 September 2019). "Der Klimaschwindel". Rubikon (in German). Retrieved 17 September 2019. google translate. It's a good mainstream overview in a magazine that claims it's "written by independent journalists from all over the world", and tries to provide quality journalism. It dismisses claims that Mann was sentenced by the Supreme Court in Canada for refusing to release his data, stating; "The data , algorithms and methods of Professor Mann's work are publicly available without exception. He even handed them over to Timothy Ball on a USB flash drive." The article says "The procedure was discontinued because Professor Ball described himself as old, ill and implausible. Another defendant in the process, the Frontier Foundation, had previously apologized....". This clearly gives secondary support to the statements from Mann's lawyer, as quoted on twitter, that the court "has never made any finding, directly or indirectly, that [Mann] failed to produce data", that "Ball's request that the case be terminated – for delay – relied heavily on his alleged state of health", and effectively that Ball's accusations lacked credibility for the average, reasonable reader. My inclination is simply to state that the case was dismissed for delay at Ball's request, without any decision on the merits of the claims. . . dave souza, talk 09:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The Rubicon article is just another mainstream piece. I didn't know we needed more of those and it don't give us any details on the dismissal, right? I can see problems with the Seattle Times piece; it contains unverified and unverifiable opinion and doesn't really fit into WP:BLP policies. If you agree we could just use the[46] for date of dismissal. And again, I suggest we keep it really short and concise until we know how the case plays out. I, personally, refuse to take sides in this. At least until I understand the outcome and ramifications of this case. Notice how far apart Mann and Ball are right now. Well, you know Mann's story. Compare that to Balls statementent[47]
"Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline."
(from same source) "As a consequence, O’Sullivan wrote on July 4 that Ball is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide..."
I find it remarkable how they still raise the bets while waiting for the judgement. Someone is going to be destroyed. I can imagine the judge feel a lot pressure now and maybe that's why we have to wait so long for the judgement. Rakeroot (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
To be honest I'm not at all impressed by the Rubikon piece. The magazine seems to be recent and online only, and I can't find any evidence that it's well regarded: see for example this article [48] from Deutschlandfunk which gives a very mixed review. Judging tone from Google translate is unwise, but the piece seems excitable and based entirely on interviews with Mann and his supporters. There is no apparent attempt to speak to Ball directly. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Strictly speaking both Rubicon and Mother Jones are connected to plaintiff through UN and are challengeable (through Mann -> IPCC -> UN -> UNESCO -> MacArthur Foundation -> Foundation for National Progress -> Mother Jones -> Climate Desk -> Rubicon). Quote of the Day: "God almighty made women and the Rockefeller gang of thieves made the ladies." - Mother Jones . . . Rakeroot (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Um, no. Are you seriously claiming some sort of Chinese whispers connection via seven levels of conspiracy-mongering nonsense? No. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Our inability/unwillingness to report on the dismissal of the case is fueling conspiracy theories now. Look at this statement from Principia Scientific International[[49]]: "Three weeks on and corrupt media reporting ensures that the key issue of the withheld ‘hockey stick’ graph r2 regression numbers gets zero mention. Wikipedia doesn’t even address Mann’s loss of what is now recognized as the ‘science trial of the century.’ See for yourself how Wikipedia disappears that matter here. Such craven bias and dishonesty should tell any rational soul that mainstream (global elite) sources are utterly untrustworthy." This could easily been avoided... . . . Rakeroot (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Since when do we care what a bizarre climate denialist and anti-vaxxer blog says? Oh right, we don't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This edit introduced a supposed copy of the court decision, hosted on Steyn Online which is a questionable source (also, see Mark Steyn#Defamation lawsuit), if genuine WP:BLPPRIMARY applies. A possible secondary source is Marjanovic, Petar (18 September 2019). "Klimaforscher Michael Mann erlebt Shitstorm nach Fake-News". Blick (in German). Retrieved 19 September 2019.. I don't have a view about how good a source this is. . . dave souza, talk 03:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    Blick is apparently a Swiss German-language daily newspaper, published by Ringier in Zürich. Doesn't go into much detail, it might be possible to use the article as a secondary source for Ball requesting dismissal for delay, which was granted on grounds of health and timing of the proposed trial. There was no request for data, the validity of Mann's work was not an issue in the hearing. . . dave souza, talk 10:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Update: "2019 BCSC 1580 Mann v. Ball". The Courts of British Columbia - Home. 22 August 2019. Retrieved 19 September 2019. (linked from Mann's Facebook page) gives the primary source for the judgment. . . dave souza, talk 10:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. That's clearly a good enough source to use for the dismissal and possibly for the costs, so I have made an edit. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Ben Norton[edit]

Ben Norton

28 of the 30 linked references on this page are to the subject's own articles and interviews. 1 of the other reference is a letter that the subject signed.

This page does not meet Wikipeda's quality guidelines in being almost exclusively promotion for articles the subject has written. There is only one third party reliable source in this entire article about the subject.

Seems in violation of this Wikipedia guideline about self-citation: "However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming."

Similar guideline in What Wikipedia is Not guidelines: "Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable."

Previous other editors have tried to delete excessive self-citations as you can see in talk page but the changes were regularly reverted by creator of page.

Potential notability issues given the almost exclusive self-citations that previous editors have noted in Talk page. Kasidy Yates (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm inclined to nominate it for deletion; subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Levivich 03:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I would support a nomination for deletion. The current article has almost no secondary coverage at all, and it is only trivial mentions rather than any significant coverage of the article subject. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have found and added multiple third-party sources, including books published by Bloomsbury Publishing, Macmillan Publishing, and PublicAffairs.GPRamirez5 (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The Public Affairs link is just yet another link to the subject's article by a colleague of the subject and not about the subject. Bloomsbury source is just a citation for an article by the subject by a friend of the subject who participated in a small occupation with the subject that is mentioned in the wiki article. Circular citations do not count as third party reliable sources. There are currently still 13 links to the subject's work even after multiple links referring to the subject writing for 1 news website were deleted. I know that many links is frowned on but an experienced Wikipediaer/s appear to be gaming the system to make this page link spamming for the subject.Kasidy Yates (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Kasidy Yates, those are not "circular citations", those are direct, and largely favorable, citations of Norton's work. If he has "friends" who are established authors, that's a point in his favor.

And it's absurd to deny the notability of someone who was quoted in The Washington Post while being honored by a head of state.GPRamirez5 (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTABILITY is based having significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A person's friends are irrelevant unless connected to the subject by reliable sources. The cited article also does not provide any evidence that Norton is notable as it is a single two-word quote that is clearly a trivial mention. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
A two-word quote is still a quote, and hardly trivial when it's a civil exchange with a world-historic figure.GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Meeting a world leader does not by itself make someone notable. Even with reasonable edits that someone possibly the subject keeps reverting this page is still 14/17 links to the subject's work and only 2 references about the subject or citing his work and one of those citations is from someone that is an associate of the subject's based on a protest the 2 went to listed in the article.Kasidy Yates (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

"Meeting a world leader does not by itself make someone notable" But being personally honored, and quoted in the Post, does. Meanwhile, whether or not Blumenthal is an associate is irrelevant, what's relevant is that he's an established author writing for an established publisher.GPRamirez5 (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I've been to a Buckingham Palace garden party, invited by the Queen herself, according to the letter from the Lord Chancellor. Do I get an article now? Guy (help!) 12:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
If you're from a hostile foreign country, involved in an international incident, and quoted in a major paper, then yes Guy, you may merit one.GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Support an article about Guy. Levivich 18:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

John R. Bolton[edit]

Just an FYI. Subject is apparently currently in the news. I'm sure we'll see quite a bit of attention on this page over the next day or so. In case anyone wants to keep a look out. GMGtalk 16:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN has semiprotected the article up until 17 September. Admittedly that's not very long, so we may have to revisit later. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC).

Milo Yiannopoulos, Redux[edit]

Apologies for bringing up a BLP that has been at this board in the past ([50][51][52][53][54]), but I'm concerned that the Yiannopoulos bio — describing someone whom I readily acknowledge is a highly controversial character with links to the right and far-right — is nevertheless not being treated professionally and in a manner expected for a BLP.

Consider for a moment that Milo Yiannopoulos and Donald Trump have very similar political opinions, styles of public engagement, and controversy surrounding their personas (involving appeals to the far-right, relationships with Breitbart, and sex scandal). Then compare the leads describing each person. Trump's lead gives you a sense of his controversial politics and actions but is restrained, and presents some form of cogent biography. By comparison Yiannopoulos' lead looks like it comes from an attack page: moving through each lead paragraph, we have (1) ridicule, plagiarism, (2) harassment, banning, (3) racism, dog-whistling, (4) paedophilia.

Given the way we describe Yiannopoulos in the lead, our whole article on Rocky Suhayda, the leader of the American Nazi Party, by comparison makes Suhayda look like a saint.

There is now an RfC at the Yiannopoulos page regarding proposed text for the bio: [55].

I'm bringing the issue here for additional comment, and pinging those involved at the relevant talk page: @Bacondrum, Flyer22 Reborn, Simonm223, JFG, and Nedrutland: (and Markbassett, who apparently is hard to ping). -Darouet (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment: That intro is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. We are supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a 3rd rate muckraking tabloid. That said, I won't touch that topic with a 10 foot pole. Springee (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it's a shocking article. Please do get involved. The article is one of the worst I've seen and if all the editors that can see the problems simply stay away from it we'll never remove all the undue and tendentious content.

This is a poor analogy. For better or worse, Trump is famous for many other things. Yiannopoulos is... not. He's "famous" (or "infamous" if you prefer) for being such an insufferable and unproductive presence that he managed to get himself banned from both of the world's major social media networks for actively reducing their value to decent human beings. He's been reduced to complaining on Telegram that not enough people are giving him money to support his lifestyle. It's unclear why you would expect the biography of a thoroughly-disgraced person to not reflect those facts. NPOV means simply that we reflect how people are portrayed in mainstream reliable sources. If those sources' portrayal is unflattering... that is not a problem we can "solve." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree with that. Having said that the article does contain a lot of tendentious and undue detail. I think it just needs some fresh eyes on it, clean it up. Bacondrum (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the article's prose is far less than perfect, and your proposed changes to the lede are all improvements. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think anybody challenges the assertion that the Yiannopoulos article needs improvement - however I would challenge the assertion that the extent to which the lede paints a negative light of him is a BLP violation. Frankly Yiannopoulos is a figure for whom pretty much every locus of his notoriety is because of something pretty uniformly awful. His early work as a media figure were marked by plagiarism and collaboration with far-right figures. His attempt at a book was marked by contract disputes and a failure to deliver. His social media involvement led to him pulling bans on two major platforms because of his non-stop trolling and harassment, and then he went on Bill Maher and engaged in apologetics for pedophilia. Like, this is all the stuff he's actually notable for. If he had, say, run for elected office, participated in a major charitable giving campaign, or really done any other really significant thing that didn't involve being an awful human being, then the state of the article vis BLP might be more alarming. But what it comes down to is that to neutrally cover Yiannopoulos is to say that he did and said a litany of awful things. That's just who he is. Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Even if editors despise the subject of an article we should still make it look like the article came from a dispassionate author. Springee (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a matter of editor personal opinion of the man. If I had my way we wouldn't have an article about media personalities of such little long-term significance. But the reality is that our current notability guidelines mean he gets an article and, well, a neutral assessment of his biography is going to not look very friendly, because he's only ever got any attention for the awful things he's done. I mean if I'm missing some major aspect of his personality not touched on by the article, please feel free to bring it up. Simonm223 (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Basically my two questions to Springee and Darouet are as follows:

  1. What that is currently in his lede do you believe should not be there and why?
  2. What is missing from his lede or his article in general that you believe should be there and why? Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
It's a mess and I'm leaving it at that. Springee (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
That's not particularly helpful in fixing it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  1. When someone trades in scandal, at some level, yes their biography will be scandelous.
  2. The lead isn't really a summary, it's a selection of individual bits, with other individual bits left out. For example, there are comparable amounts of sheer words in the body dedicated to his tour of Australia as there are dedicated to the Facebook ban. One is selected for particular mention in the lead while the other is not...because reasons? A summary is not a random selection of examples from a list of examples; a summary is making broad statement that covers (i.e., that summarizes) the entire list. That's just bad Wikipedia writing, but pretty standard for controversial articles with knock-down drag-out fights over every jot and tittle in the lead, but nobody really all that concerned about the body.
  3. He married his long-term boyfriend, an African-American man - How to tell large portions of this article were written by a straight white male...gee fizz folks. GMGtalk 13:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll repeat my comment from the ANI that Bacondrum had been involved in: per NOTNEWS/RECENTISM, and BLP, BLPs on people like Milo, who are seen in a strong negative light by the mainstream press , should not be written like scarlet letters or walls of shame. They should be written as if we were writing about Milo for the first time 20 years down the road, after Milo had left the public spotlight, rather than trying make a laundry list and capture every statement made by an RS and stuffing that in. UNDUE is important, and no question that a good article on Milo at the end of the day is still going to end up making him look bad - we can't change that facet. But we be a bit more impartial and neutral in what elements are there to summarize why he has a negative perception in the media.
For example, in the present lede there is waaay to much detail about the Brietbart situation. That he worked there, likely had ghost writers, likely tried to bring the alt/far-right as Brietbart readership, and that his comments on paedophila led to his outing there - that's reasonable, but I find there's heck of a lot more that is not lede material (but body material) that is just piling on "He's a bad person! Trust us!". We should not be writing to try to convince readers of that, that's the impartial factor here. A good summary of Milo's career will still show why he is disliked, but we don't have to force that on the reader, particularly in the lede. --Masem (t) 13:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreeing with Masem's comments and with much of what GMG has written, I also think that when a lead looks like this, it leads readers to distrust the article. Leading then to Springee's wholly reasonable reaction: "We are supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a 3rd rate muckraking tabloid."
I'm curious what people think, but I would propose a lead with a structure something like this:
(1) Early writing at The Catholic Herald, The Daily Telegraph, The Kernel, Sentinel Media, and The Daily Dot (this is fully 88% of Yiannopoulos' life).
(2) Work for Breitbart, with a note about his links to the alt-right, and possibly contacts with neo-Nazi figures. This section could contextualize Yiannopoulos within the movement around the Trump campaign. Mentioning his tours would be useful. I'm ambivalent about whether Gamergate needs a brief mention.
(3) His dismissal from Breitbart following his remarks on paedophilia, and his bans on social media platforms. Attributed descriptions of the general media consensus on some of his political positions, written in a manner that is neither sensationalist nor hides his legacy.
I think this is the responsible way to approach a BLP for a highly controversial person, but I welcome feedback. -Darouet (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm curious what people think, but I would propose a lead with a structure something like this:
That would make sense if we wrote ledes and articles strictly chronologically - but that's not how we write them. Instead, as per WP:LEDE, The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. Based on how reliable sources depict and describe Yiannopoulos, his "early writing" is essentially irrelevant - he is not famous or infamous for whatever he briefly did at The Catholic Herald. That's not why he has a Wikipedia biography. Rather, reliable sources focus on his more recent activities, notably his descent into hyperpartisan trollery and association with various fringe extremist viewpoints. That is the article's most important contents, and hence what the lede should focus on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof, Springee, Masem, and Simonm223: The structure I'm proposing is approximately, but not strictly chronological. Presumably this would include an opening sentence that introduces Yiannopoulos more generally. While you say that Yiannopoulos' early life is "essentially irrelevant," remember that this is also a biography: the article and lead should both succeed in summarizing Yiannopoulos' life in some way. Structuring a biographical lead to show more than simply scandal does not hide anything from readers, and succeeds in its mission: representing the life of a person. -Darouet (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
This proposal doesn't line up with the guidance that Masem gave though. His first two jobs, at the Catholic Herald and the Daily Telegraph are supported currently by only one RS. His founding of the Kernel is supported by two sources: one about him getting sued over it and the other being something he himself wrote. As for the Daily Dot, his only involvement with them was to sell the Kernel. The article body says he stepped down as editor-on-chief when he sold the outlet, which means that, according to the sources in the article, and the body of the article as it exists, he wasn't actually employed by the Daily Dot at all. So considering that his tenure at Breitbart is supported by some 13 different sources, including at least half a dozen about his solicitation of information from far-right figures, I'm uncertain why this would be due as much coverage in the lede as the time at Breitbart including the Gamergate and white supremacist email chain controversies.
With that said, something about his tours is probably, by this test WP:DUE in the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, let me restate something. the "One RS" thing was related to controversial material. On the other hand, standard factual data like birth date, birthtown, schooling, prior employment, etc. which is not considered controversial and standard for most WP bio articles, can stand with a single RS behind it. Now, in terms of whether that's a lede thing or not, that's a very different question, and one I definitely would say that if only one RS mentions it, and it is not a standard part of a bio lede (like a birth date), then yes, omission is reasonable. --Masem (t) 19:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, my commentary is specific to the lede. I'm not suggesting the article body not mention these things; just that the structure for the lede that Darouet proposed would not be in keeping with the weight currently assigned to parts of his biography in the article as it exists. Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Masem is spot on with this comment, be a bit more impartial and neutral in what elements are there to summarize why he has a negative perception in the media.. I think this is one of the serious problems with MANY wiki articles about controversial topics. Too often the editors are trying to tell the reader what to think ("Y has called X a racist) rather than focusing on the why that behind the "soundbite" type quotes. Wikipedia shouldn't tell you to hate or like the subject. Wikipedia should present the facts and let the reader reach their own conclusions. Springee (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

your entire argument above was that presenting the facts about what made him famous was leading people to conclusions you don't like and you wanted different "facts" presented, and now you claim we should present the facts and let people reach conclusions? what a load of gas — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Masem A question I've had about marginal BLPs recently though is this: what do we do when most indicators are that these people will, in 20 years, be forgotten. You know I've decried over-reliance on newsmedia across Wikipedia for ages but specific to these media provocateurs: if we are writing the article as if it were 20 years out, it should be a red-link. There's nothing truly lasting about Yianopoulos' contribution to society. We're already seeing it. He's the butt of jokes that screenshot his complaints that the only social media platform that will have him can't conjure more than 12,000 followers. In a lot of cases (Milo, Anthony Scaramucci, Andy Ngo, etc.) there's really nothing that will be relevant in five years, let alone twenty. So what to do? How do we reflect, in the now, the position of these figures who have achieved notoriety, for the moment, when the likelihood they'll be remembered as anything more than a footnote once their fifteen minutes expire is effectively nil? Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
(And yes, I'm perfectly aware of WP:CRYSTAL - but my assertion is there's nothing of significance about media provocateurs currently that has the significance to be relevant if we project 20 years out as Masem proposes we should.) Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I would use the principle (not the process) of notability here on WP. If there's something controversial about Milo (or any of these), see how broad the coverage is and how long it lasts. A brief burst of coverage on day 0 but next to nothing after day 2 or 3 probably means its something that is not ultimately important to include. A facet covered by exactly one RS is likely not important in the long term. Its why I paint these as laundry lists - it is very easy to add to them without any selectivity but we really should be employing a more selective approach to what gets on. Milo has clearly passed the GNG, so he will never not have an article, but focus on what later articles reflect back on the previous situations. Talking about Milo's problems at Brietbart is clearly one of those facets, as well as his role in GG. I'm doubtful on some of the other parts. --Masem (t) 15:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
A facet covered by exactly one RS is likely not important in the long term. Agreed, and I think this would be a good place to start. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree. There are a lot of articles on fringe figures (cf. Paul Joseph watson for example) whic are woven from single news stories. The exception might be if an RS piece is actually a profile of the person, rather than a colour piece about events. It's easy to see cases where a proper in-depth piece might cover something important that doesn't exist in other sources. My personal view, incidentally, is that Wikipedia should never be publishing the first biography of anyone. Guy (help!) 18:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I would VEHEMENTLY SUPPORT a change to BLP policy per what JzG suggested immediately above. Simonm223 (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Not disagreeing on the princple but is this not what BLP1E is meant to cover? --Masem (t) 19:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
"My personal view, incidentally, is that Wikipedia should never be publishing the first biography of anyone" @JzG: as long as this problem exists [56] I have to disagree with you as vehemently as Simonm223 agrees. If we wait for the "first biography" all we do is replicate a problem of misogyny elsewhere in society, along with problems of racial bias and other bigotry issues that have historically prevented recognition of notable figures who did not adhere to the "white, male, therefore notable" standard. Not judging you morally, just pointing out something you might have overlooked. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Using Wikipedia to fix real-world problems has always been a terrible idea. Even if we agree the problems should be fixed (and here, I absolutely do). Guy (help!) 20:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Recognizing that real-world problems exist, and following wikipedia policy in ways that don't rewrite into an absurd stance (such as "nobody gets a biography until someone publishes a book about them") that propagates the problems, isn't "using wikipedia to fix real-world problems". It's just making sure wikipedia doesn't replicate those problems in its own coverage. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I presume you have seen the latest absurd proposal at the WMF site? A significant number of our problems with biographies would go away if we stopped trying to blaze the trail. Guy (help!) 11:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Junius Ho[edit]

This controversial legislator has been the subject of a lot of scrutiny with regard to the Hong Kong protests including quite a bit that strains the bounds of what's allowed under WP:BLPCRIME. It needs neutral eyes. Simonm223 (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


Al Joyner is no longer married to Alisha Biehn as of the year 2007. He is currently married to Cynthia Bell Joyner. They have six children together, 2 sons and 4 daughters. Mary Joyner, Brigitte Bell Joyner, Dani Bell Joyner, Joshua Bell Joyner and Skylar and Jayden Joyner. Al comments that this is the best time of his life. Al is currently coaching at Chula Vista Elite Training Center to Olympians, Olympic hopefuls and Paralympians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:47D0:BB30:6064:64C5:59E7:95E2 (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia's article Al Joyner currently does not mention Biehn nor any other spouse. For it to mention them, there would need to be a reliable source cited. Articles do not normally name individual children unless they are independently notable. I am glad that Al is having a good time. MPS1992 (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Richard Stallman[edit]

Ongoing edit war over how or if to report on recent comments made by Richard Stallman on an Epstein-related matter. I removed the whole section as the sourcing appeared insufficient to me. Otherwise, I'm not well read on this and would appreciate someone with fresh eyes and good judgment. Haukur (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Everything you pulled is a proper pull. Mailing list stuff fails WP:BLPSPS as some of those claims were made. If the more recent statements gained traction in good RSes, then you'd be at a point to start talking about possible inclusion on the talk page, but not at this point. --Masem (t) 20:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much for taking a look at this. The material has been inserted again and—heartened by your evaluation—I have removed it again. Haukur (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
As the user in question, I would like to know how exactly we arrived at the current state of the article and what the justification for it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Stallman's own website cannot be used for self-serving statements such as apologies or denials. It cannot be used if the cited source talks about other people. You cited Stallman's website for exactly these kinds of things, so that's why I removed your work, per WP:BLPSPS. You also cited a PDF hosted online, but an unpublished primary source like that cannot be used at all on a WP:BLP. Finally, you cited Fox News which is terribly unreliable. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't know the context here, but Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Fox News. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I would counter this a bit. If we had RSes that were criticizing what Stallman had been stating and that was appropriate to include, BLPSPS does allow Stallman's own words from his own website to be used only for purposes of the counter-statements or apologies he made, if they were not covered by other RSes. Those words should not be given excessive weight - they should be there to make sure NPOV/BLP is met for the person at the center of a controversy to include their stance. But that all presumes the coverage starts with good RSes first. --Masem (t) 15:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
According to WP:BLPSPS, we cannot accept a primary-source Stallman statement if it is self-serving. Defending himself against controversy is self-serving. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I would strongly disagree that a self-published statement refuting accusations made directly at them is "unduly" self-serving. (I read "unduly" coming from the aspect of self-promotion and the like), particularly as our goal is NPOV as well; to deny the inclusion of a BLP's self-defense is against that, in general. But a lot depends on the overall nature of the controversy as it comes out from the RSes that cover the controversy - if we have good RSes covering it, they should be covering Stallman's statements too and no need to touch his website. --Masem (t) 16:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This will end up in Wikipedia in some form or another, it's in Vice, Slashdot and the New York Post. But we can wait for better sources. Guy (help!) 10:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think that's about the shape of it. Haukur (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Don't use the mailing lists for the details, wait for how RSes summarize the situation, and even then, determine if that is significant to include (is it career-affecting-type accusations? or just a tempest in a teapot?) --Masem (t) 15:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
As the person who is on the other end of most of these edits, I have to say, it's interesting how the goalposts move. As is pointed out above, Fox is green and on the list of perennial sources, as is the Daily Dot, which was also cited before most of the information related to this was removed (again, we're at three or four now? Five?). If the current level of available sourcing is not enough, no amount of sourcing will be enough. Whether or not this is a "career-affecting-type" accusation does not seem to particularly matter for whether it is a notable and verifiable fact deserving inclusion in the article. Most of the article as it now stands is less notable and verifiable than this is.
The fact that any mention of this is so militantly pared back, "better" sources are continually demanded without any clarification on what that is, and the bar is now raised to this being a "career-affecting" accusation for a man who has essentially no traditional career suggests to me, as the attitude towards this has from the start, that we are starting from the position that Stallman's article should be positive and reasoning backwards towards removing information damaging to him regardless of how notable or verifiable it is. (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate that you have made efforts to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and to comply with them. On the subject of sourcing, a publication might be reliable enough in general to get a green light on the list of perennial sources but that doesn't mean every article published there is necessarily a suitable or sufficient source for us. It makes a big difference whether we're using The Daily Dot as a source for, say, new iOS features or as a source for serious allegations against a particular living person. The Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons tells us to be "very firm about the use of high-quality sources" and that applies here. If you want to insert a "pedophilia" section into someone's biography you'd better have some excellent sources to base it on. But we currently have no such sources for this episode. A source abiding by high journalistic standards would give the accused a chance to reply to the accusations. It would also probably not publish blatant untruths like claiming in a headline that Stallman was "defending Jeffrey Epstein" when the primary source is available and shows that Stallman did not say a word in Epstein's defense. When and if high-quality sources emerge we can talk about what to do with them. A high-quality source would include Stallman's side of the story and allow us to write a balanced WP:NPOV paragraph. If we'd have to go to Stallman's own self-published materials just to give both sides of the story then that's a sign that we don't have mature reliable secondary sources. Haukur (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
So your definition of a "good source" is one that is more exculpatory to Stallman and quotes his recent defenses more extensively than the half-dozen media outlets that have already published on the matter? They would be good sources, but because their headlines were harsh and Stallman said something to try to exculpate himself which they have not parroted, they're not good sources? That's a ridiculous standard. We have easily a half-dozen rather mainstream media outlets across the ideological spectrum which are quoting directly from his blog and from an email chain that was given to them, and which they also published.
It's documented. It's verifiable. It's in secondary sources and we know where they got their information from and that it's not fabricated. It meets any definition of "high-quality source". Whether these sources were unkind to him or you disagree with their headlines is irrelevant. The current reach of this story is a minimum of hundreds of thousands of people because that's how many hits the primary sources have. I'm fairly sure, given the aggregate readership of all these different outlets, that the story's reach is well in the millions. I would hazard a guess that by any objective metric, this story is the main thing Stallman is notable for now, because this story's reach is almost certainly larger than the number of people who previously knew of him as an open source figure, open source being a relatively small world.
You're coming up with a unique definition of a "good" source which is, in practice, that the source should be nice to Stallman and give him a platform. Until a secondary source decides to give Stallman a platform under a headline that is kind to him, Wikipedia apparently can't say anything about the existing coverage of him regardless of where it is from, how thoroughly it is verified, or how notable it is. It doesn't matter if it's notable, verified, and in secondary sources because those secondary sources were insufficiently accommodating of Stallman.
I personally do not care one whit for the distinction between secondary sources or primary; I feel that it would be perfectly fine to publish the verifiable, noteworthy information with sourcing from secondary sources, as well as his commentary on it from primary sources. I've edited the article to accomplish that before, and it was reverted because policy apparently forbids it.
My personal feelings are not the rules around here. Regardless, whether or not that primary-sourced material should be included is its own issue, and stands alone. Aside from it, the existing coverage of him on this is verifiable, noteworthy, and covered in reliable secondary sources. Deciding to systematically exclude it because there is additional information in primary sources that may not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion doesn't make any kind of sense unless the goal is specifically to avoid putting negative information into the article. (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Consider WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. I think you are overestimating how much of an event this is (at least so far) in Stallman's life. As for the reach of the story, we have some data on Wikipedia pageviews and there was a significantly bigger peak in pageviews back in October 2015.[57] I am no particular fan of Richard Stallman and I don't think I've ever edited the article on him before this incident. My concern is only that we uphold policy and don't allow Wikipedia to be used to spread (basically false) sensationalist accusations. Having the Daily Dot article linked at all in the article, like it is now, is highly questionable and I suggest we remove it. To be honest, I thought the story might develop in some way today and we might get new and better sources. But if nothing more happens this isn't a matter of encyclopedic relevance. Haukur (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
16 September 2019
To the MIT community,
I am resigning effective immediately from my position in CSAIL at MIT. I am doing this due to pressure on MIT and me over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations.
Richard Stallman" (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't wanna dig into these discussions: Since most of the above was written, Stallman has resigned from MIT and FSF and there is another round of coverage in secondary sources covering that. At present, the article has one easy-to-miss sentence concerning the matter, which has been reported in two waves of publicity (pre-resignation, a few days ago, and post-resignation, today). The article is protected because something something arbitration, and so presently the ongoing edit war is being 'won' by established users who can still edit it and have decided that Wikipedia probably shouldn't mention all of this much. There is no shortage of people willing to add and improve content; there is, apparently, a shortage of willingness to let them (us, me) edit the article.

Inasmuch as any recent edits could be construed as 'vandalism', it was people seeing an obvious and glaring deficiency in the article itself and trying to fix it. Rather than improving any of this content through the normal editing process, it was repeatedly removed as a block for reasons that didn't seem good then and are certainly moot now.

For comparison of the weight given to this in his article, see Joi Ito's article, a recent MIT resignation concerning a related matter, which has its own subsection detailing precisely what happened and why the resignation took place. (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes at this point, we've hit the "career-impacting point" that makes this coverage appropriate to include. I would urge editors to figure out how much is necessary - we don;'t need to be quoting full emails or the like, for example. (We did the same approach when allegations were made at Neil deGrasse Tyson until the situation was resolved). From what I've read, this is probably a paragraph at most at this point. --Masem (t) 04:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I disagree about it being one paragraph. Again, see the Joi Ito article, which seems pretty good to me:
When someone prominent gets driven out of their position (in this case, positions, and in this case someone who might be legitimately more prominent than Ito in a certain sense) in a scandal, it is appropriate to document why in a reasonable level of detail. A reasonable level of detail is going to exceed a paragraph, as it does in the Ito article.
I'm iffy on whether I agree about quoting his emails. The contents of his emails (and his blog) are what caused him to resign, in the same sense that the quantities of money Ito received and who he received them from are what caused his resignation. I suspect, but am not sure, that excluding direct quotes where they are 1) the focus of the story in all available coverage and 2) directly available both by primary and good secondary sources would be a ... strange constraint, and enforce a sort of polite euphemistic POV instead of a neutral one. It's not the same thing as quoting at length an allegation, which is someone else's uncorroborated account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to note that I agree with the obvious: Now that we have both career-affecting consequences and journalism of a higher quality we, of course, can and should cover this. Possibly in some detail but I haven't developed an opinion on how much yet. Haukur (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Bob Weinstein[edit]

The article Bob Weinstein states "The New York Times has reported that Weinstein himself has had substance abuse problems but did not specify what drug."

The reference is to an article in the Times.[58] The Times references a book, She Said by Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey. In it, the authors state

"In his first extensive comments since the Weinstein story broke, Bob Weinstein explains that he mistakenly saw his brother’s problem as sex addiction, a rationale rooted in his own previously unreported recovery from substance abuse, and how he abandoned his attempts to intervene. “I got worn out,” he told the journalists. “I said, ‘I surrender,’ see?”

Pending review here, I deleted the passage. Since this quote does not appear to be confirmed by Bob Weinstein, would it be prudent to leave the statement out of the article? ---- Work permit (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, until someone can point out if this was a statement made elsewhere in the book, or otherwise the Times did bad reporting (and it would be worthwhile to actually report this if the statement can't be confirmed to the Times). --Masem (t) 00:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it should be left out because it has nothing to do with Bob Weinstein. Bob Weinstein is explaining how he "mistakenly saw his brother’s problem as sex addiction"[59]. It is only as an aside that he attributes this to "his own previously unreported recovery from substance abuse". If and when he speaks about his substance abuse separate from his explanation of how he managed to misunderstand his brother's problem, then we can consider putting it in the article. Bus stop (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Ponnapula Sanjeeva Prasad[edit]

I have blanked this under the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy.

There appears to be no good version anywhere in the entire edit history (q.v.!), apart from the one that comprised just two punctuation characters. The one at the time of the speedy deletion nomination that was supposedly the "last good version" made accusations against someone else. Even the one from the last time that this was on this noticeboard had "it is rumoured" and "there is little information".

There are a whole bunch of single purpose accounts, legal threats, copyright violations, bad content, and edit summaries making accusations about the article subject. There was a huge edit war amongst them that no-one else spotted through November and December 2018.

Unless someone comes along swiftly and repairs this within the next day, I am going to delete the entire edit history.

Uncle G (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Kurt Krakowian[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, 254HewittTXInfo removed quite a bit of information from the Kurt Krakowian article which was true and accurate, regarding his political experience, his resignation, and involvement in a sexual harassment lawsuit while a City of Hewitt, TX Councilman. It leads me to suspect that the user is indeed himself, especially since the information was sourced from NPOV sources and written in a NPOV manner. Could someone please watch the article and the user to ensure he/she/them doesn't misbehave on this article anymore, because there's been further developments with his political involvement that are in the news and it's a pertinent part of his biography, as a public figure, both as a minor actor and as a minor political figure. THanks. Conradrock (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Is the subject even all that notable? he was a very minor actor (mostly single episode bit part appearances in TV series). The only reason he seems to have gotten any press is due to scandals relating to a 5 month stint as local councilman. Curdle (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
And at least our coverage that we're using for those is local coverage. Notability is certainly questionable here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I also can’t see any notability. I’ve nominated it for deletion at WP:AFD. Neiltonks (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ben Stokes[edit]

Clear consensus to show no reasonable grounds for re-inclusion. Thanks for all the input—closed by OP. MIDI (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Today, news reports surfaced about a family tragedy involving the cricketer Ben Stokes. Stokes has taken to social media to condemn the way the information was leaked by the gutter press, and has asked for privacy for his family. The information (with WP:RS) was added to Stokes's article as a sentence or two (i.e. nothing that could be construed as WP:UNDUE). It has since been removed by an editor with the edit summary suggesting we honour Stokes's request for privacy. Personally, I feel this violates WP:CENSOR, and inclusion of such information isn't contrary to WP:BLP. Given that this story is currently in the media, it makes sense to me to tread carefully and gauge others' opinions before we start edit warring over its inclusion. MIDI (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure that it relates to privacy but I would not include it as I can see an event from before his birth and reported in a tabloid from a member of the family is not really noteworthy to his life story. MilborneOne (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Would agree with non-inclusion at this point based on Stokes' request and that it is unrelated to the BLP of Stokes. --Masem (t) 15:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree- Those RS have just requoted a UK tabloid, The Sun. The events occurred in 1988, before he was born. I would say it was undue; I cant really see how it is relevant to his biography. Curdle (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, not really about his life, not his father either, keep it out of his biography. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
As Curdle notes, the two sources ( and were both repeating what The Sun published, which falls well short of reliable sourcing requirements. Even so, it would be undue to include it. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Caroline Danjuma[edit]

This has come up before but wasn't really properly resolved. Our account on this Nigerian actor has been visited a number of times over the past few years by (accounts claiming to be) the article subject, insisting that information in the article is incorrect, although at the moment it is backed up by sources which appear to be reliable, and the subject has not provided any sources to counter. A new account with her name today is trying to "correct" some of the same information, and has also emailed me for help. In the past, a different account (Caroline Hutchings (talk · contribs), see contribs) has claimed that a fraudster was adding deliberately false information to the article in what seems to amount to a hatchet job, or possibly extortion, and she has been trying to correct it, but of course without providing sources she is just being reverted. I'd appreciate if someone more familiar with BLP issues and dealing with article subjects could step in here; I've already started a discussion section on the article's talk page. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Eric Woodfin Naylor[edit]


Eric Woodfin Naylor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting input on the article talk page from editors experienced with recent death BLPs (which I am not). During a Huggle run, I partially reverted an edit that added a date of death (yesterday) without a source. I searched at the time and could not find a source reporting the death. Some time later, I was reverted by a different editor. I searched again, and this time I found a Facebook post by the article subject's university (verified account) reporting the subject's death. I added that as a reference to the death date. Subsequently, I was reverted by a third editor, indicating that Facebook is not a reliable source. I reverted the reversion, and was reverted by a fourth editor, so I started a thread on the talk page. I'm not sure how we normally handle these situations, so I'd appreciate if editors experienced with this sort of thing could chime in at the article's talk page. Thanks in advance! (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Levivich 18:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

That was super fast. Thanks much to Larry Hockett for finding and adding a better source! Levivich 19:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

paul le roux[edit]

much of Paul Le Roux is cited from articles by evan ratliff. such as: "Le Roux would frequently post angry, sarcastic and offensive messages, including harsh verbal attacks against Australia as well as racist comments." ratliff, however, does not provide any sources for his articles. I do not doubt their veracity, but I have been unable to verify his comments as anything but hearsay. becasue of this, any part of the article sourced from evan ratliff is hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The writings of Ratliff appear to originate from The Atavist Magazine which really just looks like a open platform for longreads like Medium or the like - without any editorial control. This makes any use of Ratliff's pieces a violation of WP:BLPSPS, and should all be removed. --Masem (t) 14:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Exley[edit]


The note under [7] is a link to an article that criticizes Exley's paper published in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology, but the article is not retracted, even partially. Here is a link to his article: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Fiona Graham[edit]

On the wikipedia page it says this: In December 2010, Graham and a company owned by her were fined a combined NZ$64,000 and ordered to pay NZ$9,000 in costs after being convicted of a total of 14 charges relating to the use of a building in Wanaka to house tourists after the building had been declared "dangerous" in June 2008.[44] Graham unsuccessfully made various appeals; a final leave to appeal by both Graham and her company was rejected by the Supreme Court of New Zealand in December 2014.[45] But it should say this one instead: In December 2010, Graham and a company owned by her were fined a combined NZ$64,000 and ordered to pay NZ$9,000 in costs after being convicted of a total of 14 charges relating to the use of a building in Wanaka to house tourists after the building had been declared "dangerous" FOR SHORT TERM ACCOMMODATION in June 2008.[44] Graham unsuccessfully made various appeals BECAUSE THE HOUSE HAD NEVER BEEN USED FOR SHORT TERM ACCOMMODATION AND WAS LEGALLY DEFINED AS A HOUSE AND THEREFORE NOT DANGEROUS; a final leave to appeal by both Graham and her company was rejected by the Supreme Court of New Zealand in December 2014. The prove is already on the documents listed on the wikipedia page. Also I would like to add more external links. Like this:

Thank you {subst:unsigned2|21:25, September 20, 2019‎|Lilly1985}}

This is VERY clearly yet another undeclared COI and probably paid editor related to this article. See [61] about a "helper" that was supposedly using the account. There has been more COI and pro-Graham POV pushing on this article that just about anything outside of politics. Ravensfire (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)