Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:26, 2 July 2020

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

J. K. Rowling

I am coming here regarding issues at J. K. Rowling#Transgender issues, which is a featured article, though input on the section as a whole is also welcome. Note that basically the same material is covered at Politics of J. K. Rowling, although I think that article overall is a WP:POVFORK created to dump WP:NOTNEWS material in and should be deleted.

The coverage of her essay responding to criticism is cited to this source from Reuters (green at WP:RSP), which is a secondary source to her essay itself. The Reuters source reads, Rowling, 54, said she believed most trans people posed zero threat to others, were vulnerable and deserved protection. But she gave examples of where she thought demands by trans activists were dangerous to women. “When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman ... then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.” The quoted portion from the essay without ellipsis reads, When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.

I think this should be summarized as, ...and stated that some of what trans activists were asking for regarding access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women.... However, a couple of editors are determined to have it read, ...and stated that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women.... This is a misrepresentation of her position. It is not just about transgender women, as this implies. She is clearly stating that the issue goes beyond trans women - that certain criteria for access allow persons who are not trans women and do not actually identify as women to gain access for other reasons ("any and all"). We can't attribute to her a position different from the one actually held.

As a secondary issue, overall, a few editors are dead set on removing reference to the fact that Rowling also received support, and piling on opinions that criticized Rowling. For example, she received support from transgender pop singer Dana International. This was mentioned in the Reuters source, and so seems very WP:Due. It's also mentioned in this story. Isn't it a violation of WP:NPOV to claim someone received only criticism when that is simply not the case? Why are cisgender Harry Potter actors' opinions more noteworthy than what an actual trans woman says? We should not patronizingly act as though all trans people have the same opinion. Crossroads 16:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll say this, between the two options above, the second one is at least grammatically correct. That may be part of the problem. I do think it should be pointed out that the source says the demands were from "trans activists" and not trans women in general. To make it grammatically correct and eliminate the dual meaning it presents, I would probably change it to "...and stated that some of what trans activists were asking for, regarding access to single-sex spaces, were a danger to women..." Here, the subject (some) is plural, so the verb (were) should be plural as well. Then, by separating the parenthetical clause with commas, it helps avoid confusion between which verb is the main verb of the sentence and helps avoid confusion between the preposition "for" and the verb "regarding", which created a snag for the reader. (I had to go back and read it twice to get what it was trying to say.) All in all, though, I think it is important to stick to what the sources say about activists.

The rest I don't know about. In general, I'd say that criticism needs to be balanced. If there are statements praising this, then those should be added as well, provided that they are sourced and notable. But I have never heard the term "cisgender" and have no clue what it means, or what Harry Potter has to do with anything, so you've lost me there. Zaereth (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Cisgender is the term used in certain circles to mean " people whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth.' In answer to the first post, certainly the support she received for her article, which she knew would bring a lot of vitriolic abuse her way, should be referenced if it can be done by using reliable sources. Also I don't agree that saying "she supports keeping trans women out of single sex spaces" is sufficiently clear. What she is talking about, as she made clear, is proposed legal changes that would allow completely male bodied people to state that they identify as women to change their legal status to women and then be eligible to enter women only spaces. This is a very bitter and divisive issue in the UK and a real hornet's nest which I have no intention of being involved with.Smeat75 (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, this is all far out of my realm of expertise, but sounds like jargon to me. Wouldn't it be easier to just say that? (Personally, I prefer the Navajo belief that there are four genders. Likely more. And all bathrooms should be unisex, what the hell.) As for the specific request, I'd simply say go with what the sources say. Keep it as concise as possible while being as precise as possible in summarizing them. We want the gist of it without altering the meaning, and I think the second example does that, so I would go with the first, with a few corrections for clarity and understandability. Zaereth (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I've been keeping out of the Rowling drama on Misplaced Pages because of the hornet's nest that Smeat75 mentions, and because I have enough such nests to deal with on Misplaced Pages, and because of misguided accusations (or assumptions) of transphobia against editors (including myself) that result when being involved with topics like this one. I mean, the "people who menstruate" type of wording came up on Misplaced Pages as well, and there is no disputing the fact that there are people who would call everyone (me included) who voted "oppose" in that RfC WP:Village pump (policy) discussion transphobic. Rowling received so much disgusting, misogynistic abuse for speaking her mind. Transgender activists didn't come together to focus on that. But, hey, they have come together to focus on what they argue is The Sun's misogyny against Rowling.

Anyway, I agree that the "she supports keeping trans women out of single sex spaces" piece isn't wording that should be retained. That's not what she stated, and it's misleading to make it seem like she focused on keeping trans women out. I can't speak for Rowling, but it doesn't seem to me that she would object to a trans woman who passes using the women's bathroom. As for those who are visibly transgender? Again, I can't speak for Rowling. I did read her essay that added fuel to the fire, but we are all going to interpret it in different ways (some more similar than others). I would simply quote her directly. That should stop the back and forth over whatever wording each side thinks is the best summary for it. And, of course, material about Rowling receiving support for her commentary should be there if WP:Due. Sources reporting on a trans woman supporting her viewpoint? Dana International's trans status is relevant, and the woman is notable. If sources are taking the time to mention her, then sources clearly see it as noteworthy to mention. Furthermore, the sources are clear that Rowling and Dana International have sort of a friendship or acquaintance status. Yes, Rowling received more backlash than support, but it doesn't mean that any support material should be excluded. Base the matter on WP:Due. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the secondary issue, Dana International is no more representative of other transgender people as are any single person in any community. Mermaids an established British non profit charity that supports gender variant and transgender youth which received £500,000 from the UK's National Lottery only this year is a 100 times more WP:Due. To equate International personal view to be of the same level as expert organisations like Mermaids and the Trevor Project is WP:FALSEBALANCE. ~ BOD ~ 22:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You have a strange idea of what constitutes weight. I looked at Flyer22's links and examples, and this all seems like a good example of how easy it is for people to become the things they fight against. Cops become criminals, people who battle racism become racists, and activists against intolerance become intolerant. (I won't even mention the Trump haters.) The things people hate in others tend to be those same things they unconsciously dislike about themselves. It's a story as old as time. Wherever there is a battle to be fought... Zaereth (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: "I won't even mention the Trump haters." – Are they turning orange and unable to tell the truth for more than 30 seconds straight?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Rowling's lack of enthusiasm for the language bending in until-recently-strange ways, and making it clear that having lived as a woman in the entire biological sense has shaped who she is and what she does, while also repeatedly making it very clear she's supportive of trans rights and was way ahead of the curve on that – this is not "transphobic". Even some trans activists are saying it is not and that labeling her that way will hurt their own cause. It's just extremist noise and is not encyclopedic material. Every time someone somewhere gets mad at some tweet, we do not need to write about it in the encyclopedia. This is not EmpheralMessagesAndEmotionsPedia. Further comments at the article talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Respectively who are you labelling as extremists that are making 'noise'? and apart from Dana International (who is not a activist) who are the trans activists or non activists who are actually supporting Rowlings to deny other transgender individuals the simple human right to use the wash room that aligns with their gender? It may have started with a tweet, but she then published a lengthy essay in which she erroniously associates the transgendered with preditory male abusers, all this has been picked up by the international press, with even the conservative press supporting those who have been critical of her remarks. ~ BOD ~ 11:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is the essay you are referring to. Anybody can read what she says and to claim that she wants "to deny... transgender individuals the simple human right to use the wash room that aligns with their gender" is not correct. She writes about many aspects of trans activism, what she says about washrooms/changing rooms is only a small part of it. She refers to a hitherto totally unfeminist older lady who’s vowed never to visit Marks & Spencer again because they’re allowing any man who says they identify as a woman into the women’s changing rooms and When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. Earlier, she says A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law. Many people aren’t aware of this. Indeed many people are not, I think when people see the term "trans woman" a lot of them think it means "someone who has TRANSitioned medically from male to female or is in the process of doing so" and do not realise that it is now insisted in some circles that biology has nothing to do with gender, it is purely a matter of self identity. So you have the situation that 100% male bodied people who say they identity as women are called "trans women" and then they and their supporters insist "trans women are women" and these totally male bodied people with male sex organs and male hormones must be allowed access to women only spaces (not just wash rooms). It is dishonest of her WP bio to say she writes that "allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women." She doesn't say that at all.Smeat75 (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep. And "she erroniously associates the transgendered with preditory male abusers" is basically a fiction, or an assumption that has taken on the form of a fiction. It is not encyclopedic material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I had to try doing a direct quote since my last attempt at using the accurate summary and pointing to this discussion was reverted. Controversy is likely to continue. We need more balanced editors there to combat WP:ADVOCACY and people not WP:LISTENing. Crossroads 20:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The bathroom story is an extremely common dog whistle specifically used to argue against allowing trans women into bathrooms. Anyone familiar with transphobic discourse would instantly recognise this for what it is and I think that is why you're getting so much pushback on this. "any man" in this context is any man who identifies as a woman. so in effect: any trans woman. Licks-rocks (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

"any man" in this context is any man who identifies as a woman. so in effect: any trans woman. This is your personal WP:OR. As I said above: She is clearly stating that the issue goes beyond trans women - that certain criteria for access allow persons who are not trans women and do not actually identify as women to gain access for other reasons ("any and all "). We can't attribute to her a position different from the one actually held. Are you saying you can't imagine any reason for which a man (not a trans woman) might wish to access a single-sex space? Crossroads 20:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding my point. What I am saying is that you, like I said when I reverted your edit, are making a distinction without a difference. It is an argument specifically designed to instil fear about trans people existing in public spaces and we should treat it as such. I think including the quote reduces the quality of the article as a whole, as it is better to express a summary of what is being said, something the previous version does a much better job at. if you insist on altering the status quo, please take care not to leave it without the proper context. Licks-rocks (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

furthermore, expanding on me mentioning "proper context" I think it is disingenuous to suggest this argument, presented in a whole manifesto aimed specifically at trans people, is not about trans people. It is clear from the rest of the manifesto that JKR's point is not merely about bathrooms. Would she have made this argument in isolation, I may have been more inclined to agree with you, but it is not. It is merely one of the more notable arguments in a barrage of transphobic talking points. And I repeat: We should treat it as such. To "take it literally" in the sense that you are suggesting cannot be done without taking the rest of the document into consideration. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

You are just ignoring what she actually says and making stuff up. She isn't talking about "trans" people, people who have TRANSitioned from one sex to another, she is talking about biological MALES who say the magic words "I identify as a woman " and think that gives them the right to enter women only spaces.Smeat75 (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have ignored the second segment of my reply. As for "me making stuff up", no. I simply actually took the time out of my day to read the damn thing. It is quite clear within the context of the rest of the document what the reader is supposed to take away from that segment. Please keep your baseless accusations towards me to a minimum going forward. Thanks in advance, Licks-rocks (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, "she is talking about biological MALES who say the magic words "I identify as a woman "" is an admission that I am correct, and not a rebuttal. It is indeed solely aimed at men who identify as women, which is to say, trans people. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't accept that, she doesn't accept that, we will never accept that. For a man to say "I identify as a woman " does not make him a trans woman or any kind of woman. It is deeply misogynistic. Smeat75 (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who "we" is, and I suggest you leave any notion of "we" at the door, since thinking in terms of factions is not very conductive to building an encyclopedia. As for trans: that is not actually what that word means. The word "trans" is derived from a prefix, being the opposite of cis. It has nothing to do with transitioning, and people are referred to as trans both before and after transitioning. Your point is moot. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

"We" means "she and I". Not hard to grasp. Some or these so-called "trans women" have no intention of ever "transitioning". It is a nonsense and a deep insult to actual women.Smeat75 (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I rest my case. It is clear that you are not intending to listen to reason on this topic. --Licks-rocks (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Bodney (~ BOD ~) asked, "apart from Dana International (who is not a activist) who are the trans activists or non activists who are actually supporting Rowling ?" I cut off the rest of Bodney's statement because that's not what Rowling stated. And what Dana International stated (among other things) is the following: "Sometimes the community goes to unnecessary wars with people who are totally with us." Haaretz stated, "International's support is significant because even cast members of the 'Harry Potter' films, which are based on Rowling’s mammoth-selling novels, have said they disagree with her, contending that trans women are unquestionably women. International has often commented on the subject, saying there is a distinction between trans and cisgender women, and no reason to put them under one umbrella." As for others? Many know of the infamous Blaire White's views. Her views as a trans woman are mainly infamous because they significantly depart from what is more often reported on in the media about trans views. And for her views on trans issues, she's been called transphobic or a transmedicalist, including by cisgender people who don't know that she's transgender (who assume she's cisgender by her appearance) when ranting at her and speaking on matters they are ill-informed on. She's also been called a self-hating trans woman. As seen by this YouTube video, White has talked about all of this. And as seen here (and in some recent video where she joined other commentators on someone else's channel, but I can't find at the moment), she supports Rowling (although, going by that recent video I currently can't find, she does take some issue with things Rowling stated in the aforementioned essay). And on the bathroom issues? White has been clear why excluding a trans woman who looks like her -- who appears cisgender -- from the women's bathroom and insisting that she use the men's bathroom does not work; her "I Used The Men's Bathroom (But I'm Trans...)" video says it all.

Other trans women who support Rowling include physics teacher Debbie Hayton (who was so appalled by The Body Shop's take on this matter that she wrote the "How dare the Body Shop tell JK Rowling what to think" piece in The Spectator), Miss London (who's been clear that she doesn't support Maya Forstater, but does consider Rowling a trans ally), Rose of Dawn, and Miranda Yardley, among others (including those in Rowling's Twitter feed). Of course we shouldn't include support commentary from any ole person (trans or not). I'm just pointing out that Rowling's views (not necessarily all of them) have support from some trans women. Transgender people's views are diverse on this topic. That's why a trans man like Jammidodger considers Rowling transphobic, while someone like Rose of Dawn doesn't. It's why ContraPoints received a lot of backlash, especially from non-binary people, for commenting "I guess good for people who use they/them only and want only gender neutral language. But it comes at the minor expense of semi-passable transes like me, and that's super fucking hard for us.", and later for including trans man Buck Angel in one of her videos because some view him as a transmedicalist. Like Rose of Dawn states, there is no unified trans voice; there's just one side that speaks louder than the others and gets more media attention.

I've stated before that I listen to both sides (I regularly watch Jammidodger's videos, for example). And contrary to what some would have us believe, listening to both sides is not at all like hearing out gay/lesbian people and conversion therapists or black people and racists (or specifically Nazis). "What is a woman?" is not a "good vs. very bad/evil people" debate (no matter that certain people frame it that way), and it has been debated for many years, including by Simone de Beauvoir, who argued, "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman." That debate continues in today's climate; it's just amplified via social media platforms (especially the toxic Twitter). There are many gay and lesbian people who don't agree with some transgender views. And while what is racist is usually clear (though the recent climate shows that some white people are very ignorant to what racism is), what is transphobia is very much debated, including by those within the transgender community (although there is general agreement on some things that are certainly transphobic). As noted by Buck Angel and this recent The Guardian source, there is also a generational divide. And that generational divide includes significantly older transgender people (like Buck Angel) who have views on trans issues that are different than those of younger trans people. Many wish that these discussions were a lot more civil, but there is a long way to go on that front. Above, I spoke on the abuse Rowling has received for speaking her mind, but Daniel Radcliffe has also received backlash, including a lot of vitriol (somewhat via the Twitter hashtag #AskDanielRadcliffe), for speaking his mind. I can't help but shake my head at how civil discourse often goes right out the window on this topic, and bullying tactics are enabled, and at how people who mean well and want to discuss their concerns are so afraid to speak their minds for fear of being labeled whatever. My youngest sister, who agrees with the backlash against Rowling (but not the misogyny directed at her), doesn't have to fear speaking her mind on this subject. But those who disagree with her? Sighs.

Anyway, my sort of essay (above) aside... For the topic at hand, we should not be putting words in Rowling's mouth, even if a reliable (perhaps biased) source is misrepresenting or misquoting her. It's that simple. Don't tell me we'll need an RfC on this. Sighs again. Something good to come out of all of this for me is learning who Dana International is; her "Woman In Love" song is fire. Stuck in my head. And let's be real here: If she were Beyoncé, Ellen DeGeneres, or Oprah, trying to keep her commentary on any of this out of the Rowling article would be a losing battle. Absolutely futile. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22:"And on the bathroom issues? White has been clear why excluding a trans woman who looks like her -- who appears cisgender -- from the women's bathroom and insisting that she use the men's bathroom does not work". Well, maybe for her. But this reminds me that earlier this year, a quite ‘’passable’’ transwoman (that is, a trans who looks like a ciswoman, just like Blair White) was violently dragged out from a shopping-mall for using the women’s bathroom. (Pictures of her in a News article). Turns out that someone was able to notice that she was trans and called security. This happened near where I live, in Brazil. The point is, this notion that passable trans have nothing to fear is simply not real. She was a victim of this idea that circulates in society (and that is subtly reinforced by insensitive discourses, like Rowling’s or White’s) that transwomen who don’t look like ciswomen are probably just predators. Well, if passable trans are being victims of discrimination and violence, imagine what happens to those who are, unfortunately, unable to look like a cis no matter how hard they try. Anyway, this was just a thought. Daveout (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Daveout. Looking at this, I'm not sure if you tried to ping me since you used my old, simple username, but the ping won't work when pinging the old username. Also, there is no need to ping me since I am keeping up with this section. I pinged you just in case you miss my reply and don't mind being pinged to a page you are watching (if you are watching this one). I appreciate you pointing out the instance you pointed to. Some would argue that if a transgender woman is truly passable, she would not have been recognized as trans. That stated, what is passable can vary according to people's views, and "passable" is sometimes based on stereotypical notions of what a woman looks like or elitist beliefs about female bone structure (such as a cisgender woman always having a certain type of forehead or jawline). For example, I'm aware that some cisgender butch lesbians have been misgendered and/or turned away when trying to use the women's bathroom. As for White and Rowling, I've never heard or seen them state or imply "that trans women who don't look like ciswomen are probably just predators." I was clear that I read Rowling's essay. I didn't get that she was stating that in her essay either. In the aforementioned video, White was clear that she continued to use the men's bathroom when she wasn't passable because she didn't want to make anyone uncomfortable. She's also been clear that a non-passable trans woman's safety should play a role in deciding not to use the women's bathroom. In the aforementioned video, she stresses common sense. Of course, some don't agree with what she argues is common sense on the bathroom matter. Anyway, I pointed to the bathroom video not to make a personal argument on the bathroom debate, but to show that White doesn't agree with the black and white argument that "if you're a trans woman, you should simply stay out of the women's bathroom." On a side note: Trans women and LGBT groups in general typically prefer that "trans women" is not presented as "transwomen." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I have to add that "dog-whistling" is an activity and an intent. Nothing (such as concerns about men who just apply for an receive gender confirmation certificates just for the hell of it and are not in any form of transition) "is" innately a dog-whistle. It's entirely reasonable for a cis-woman in a country that issues legally binding gender confirmation certificates, without any actual criteria, to have concerns about this. It's not transphobic, and trying to spin it as such is activism and (on Misplaced Pages) OR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: J. K. Rowling

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

In J. K. Rowling#Transgender issues and Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender issues:

1. When discussing Rowling's response to criticism of her views on transgender issues, cited to this source from Reuters, should her views be relayed as A She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman ... then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside", while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection. or B She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women, while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection.?

2. Should the section state, Transgender pop singer Dana International spoke in support of Rowling., sourced to Reuters and Haaretz? Crossroads 21:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Updated links to the articles to go directly to the sections in question. Crossroads 23:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• 1: Option A. Option B misrepresents Rowling's views and is therefore unacceptable. The issue is not just about transgender women, as this implies. She is clearly stating that the issue goes beyond trans women - that certain criteria for access allow men who are not trans women and do not truly identify as women to gain access for other reasons ("any and all men"). We can't attribute to her a position different from the one actually held. A direct quote eliminates the issue of interpretation by editors.
  2: Yes. It is a violation of WP:NPOV constituting improper WP:WEIGHT to present matters as though Rowling received universal condemnation, which is how it is being done without this material. Reuters and Haaretz are both listed in green at WP:RSP. There is no sensible criterion to include the opinions of actors from the Harry Potter movies - who have no expertise in this area - and not that of a transgender woman whose response has been treated as noteworthy by reliable sources. As for the fact that some transgender people disagree with Dana International, we have the advocacy groups presenting that viewpoint; but we should not misleadingly present it like all trans people feel the same way on these matters.
  As on all controversial topics, we have a duty to follow WP:NOTADVOCACY and not allow articles to become mere one-sided repositories of opinions especially liked by small cliques of editors. This is a recurring problem with any material related to transgender issues. Indeed, there is a good chance that there are other examples of undue weight in these two articles. Crossroads 21:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Since the topic has come up below, I believe the matter of what she has said on transgender issues should be covered, but I do support limiting the overall length of these sections to two reasonably sized-paragraphs. Hopefully the closer takes this aspect into account as well. We don't need to detail the Forstater incident, or quote Radcliffe at length when he opines about "professional health care associations" without a WP:MEDRS source, or reference GLAAD's response twice, for example. Some editors have been arguing to pile on even more ephemeral social media drama about this at the Politics of J. K. Rowling article, which is supposedly for this, even though WP:NOTNEWS applies everywhere and that WP:POVFORK should be merged or deleted. Crossroads 15:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1: Option A. The B version is a patent misrepresentation of the source statement; it's WP:OR and WP:POV. Update: I agree with Ineffablebookkeeper, below, that rewording a bit would be a good idea.
  2: Yes. WP depicting some kind of general/universal trans-people condemnation of Rowling is more OR and PoV nonsense.
  Better yet: don't cover this at all. The fact that some activists decided to misconstrue a tweet and a longer piece, in ways that are obviously counter to the statements' actual meaning, is not encyclopedic subject material. This is not SomePeopleGotMadForAWhileOnSocialMedia-pedia. It is not WP's job (see WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#SOCIAL, WP:NOT#INDEX) to serve as a catalogue of every ephemeral bit of online micro-drama surrounding celebrities. That's what People magazine is for.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC); updated: 05:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1: B should not be included, but A should be reworded. I echo the concerns of other editors regarding B - it's not encyclopedic language. However, I'm not keen on the wording of A, personally - I think it still leaves room for controversy amongst editors, thus leading to things like edit warring. I'd put it as something like She said that she was a survivor of both domestic abuse and sexual assault. In the same interview, she also stated her belief that " the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman" would "open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside", stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection.
  2: Not unless it's going to be part of a wider section detailing media responses to Rowling's statements. If the interests of one Israeli pop singer alone are all that's included, no matter the fact that it's cited, and despite my admitted personal biases, I still think it gives a slant. However, I haven't read the rest of the article - it might include these things anyway. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1: Option A. Use her own words. B isn't what she said at all and is a complete misrepresentation.
  2: Yes. Of course support she received from people relevant to the issue should be included if this matter is going to be in her WP bio. However, I agree with User:SMcCandlish above, the best thing would be not to include this at all. She is a noted fiction writer, that doesn't make her opinions about controversial current affairs notable, despite the outrage of activist groups who cannot brook a word of opposition to their beliefs.Smeat75 (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - huh. An RFC. Not really flagged on the articles it's about. And where one of the options presented by the person who drafted the RFC is shot down by that person. How odd. Almost as if a certain conclusion was desired and being orchestrated... Crossroads mentions Reuters a lot, as if it's the only source available and the holy grail of reliable sources - to the extent I've commented on it on the article talk page. That aside, what have we here? A series of tweets, described by many prominent people as transphobic because they hit all the usual dog-whistles. Rowling defining women as "people who menstruate", and pissing off a hell of a lot of women who are post-menopausal, have had hysterectomies, do not menstruate for hormonal reasons, and leaving aside the fact that many trans men menstruate. An essay from Rowling, in response. An essay that talks about her ex-husband assaulting her (what this has to do with trans issues, I'm not sure, but it does seem to be a straw man of some kind), and that giving men access to women's bathrooms will be a danger to women. I'm not aware of any men seeking access to women's bathrooms. I am aware that the number of women attacked in women's bathrooms by trans women is vanishingly small. Searching for instances leads to articles on attacks on trans women, not perpetrated by them. Trans women are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it. So understandably, her comments and essay caused a large backlash, and understandably that has been covered by many mainstream media outlets (not just Reuters!). And naturally, they have sought the comments of those celebrities most associated with her, so we have all of the HP actors, and in addition, organisations such as GLAAD, Mermaids, and The Trevor Project. We're striving for NPOV and balance, but the responses of those organisations, as reported by RS, were all removed from the biography and politics and articles at various stages (they're restored now). So yes, this controversy should be covered; no, it should not be tied to what Reuters says; no, there is no need to fix in stone a form of words here via an ill-publicised RFC; especially so when we're being led to just one of the options presented; sure, include prominent voices who supported Rowling, if they're due (I'm not aware of any connection between Dana International and Rowling) and if coverage merits it (one line in a story by one international news agency and some local Israeli press doesn't really cut it). Bastun 00:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  You're free to post neutral notices at whatever talk pages you like. However, the point of RfCs is to gather input from the broader editorial community, not just the same handful of people who've already been arguing something to death without coming to a compromise. And WP:FRS exists for a reason. Non-WP:SNOW RfCs run for a long time, and plenty of people will see it, especially as it's at a major noticeboard.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry, am I wrong in thinking that it is absolutely normal practice to advertise the existence of an RfC about an article - as an absolute minimum - on that article's talk page? To be frank, I have a problem with advertising an RFC non-neutrally when the RFC itself is framed as this one is - "here's a plausible phrasing we could use; here's an alternative phrasing that's not going to fly; choose between them." Bastun 08:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  The advantage of posting it here without mentioning it on any of the talk pages is that you get to set up your side of the story in peace without any of those pesky other editors getting to have a say in it, of course. ^^° --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Bastun is implying a requirement or responsibility to notify individual articles' talk pages. There is not one. Repeat: "You're free to post neutral notices at whatever talk pages you like." RfCs often cover very large categories of material, and we do not spam a zillion talk pages. The entire point of RfCs is to get new, uninvolved editorial input, so notifying article talk pages, even on a narrow matter like this one, often proves counter-productive anyway. If an issue is trivial but stalemated, and not of interest beyond that article (e.g., whether a particular photo is better to use than some other one), it is best to have the RfC at the article talk page. When it involves serious policy-compliance questions, it is often better at a noticeboard, and without pre-stacking the input with people already deeply embedded in the impasse and the circular, unproductive arguments about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Bastun, it was Rowling who was pissed off about women being described as "people who menstruate" - Rowling took issue with the phrasing, tweeting: “‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”Pincrete (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, SMcCandlish, and that Bastun is trying to act like it's a scandal that I voted in my own RfC, like almost everyone does, is ridiculous. As for the claim that Option B is an "alternative phrasing that's not going to fly", or as stated below is worded "flippantly", funny how that's only come up after it started getting trounced here, because at the article itself, these editors never complained and others were more than happy to revert to it: But since you mention "neutral notices", would you say Bastun's notice is neutral? It includes the comment Some editors have expressed concern that the RfC has not been put together or presented neutrally. But these claims are only coming from one side; I'll leave their merit to others to judge. What to do? Crossroads 15:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Bullshit! Of course you'd vote in your own RfC, you'd be mad not to. That's not the point I made. Bastun 20:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  RFCs aren't supposed to be votes, so ain't supposed to be nobody "voting" in them at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• 1. Option A and 2. Yes, if included, per SMcCandlish (talk · contribs). I agree with him that preferably, it should not be included at all; at the very least, wait a month or two and then re-evaluate. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper; it's not within our purview to cover every Twitter-provoked tempest in a teapot. That said, if this material is to be included, we ought to say she said what she actually said, not leave out a part of it that significantly changes the implied meaning. I'm neutral as to Ineffablebookkeeper (talk · contribs)'s suggestion regarding the wording of option A. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 01:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• 1. Option E' (below) after that Option 1B as it is closer to the context of the passage and her essay as reported by several reliable sources.' Option 1.B and 2 No * Until a better option is offered, I temp' Option 1A is based on the Reuter article quote that misses out the middle bit of the quote, changing the emphasis, other reliable sources don't do this. though they are BOTH misrepresentations of what she actually said. .....This RfC has not been put together neutrally, with option 1 B being worded a bit flippantly. Her actual words are ...In refering to the safety of "natal girls and women" ... "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. The clear implication here is that she is referring to primarily about a non-natal females (e,g. transsexuals) who have obtained a gender certificate not men in general. Context is everything Rowlings did not make this comment in isolation, but in a long and purposefully worded essay about transsexuals that contained several other (erroneous) statements about transexuals, it should not be read in isolation without taking the rest of her essay into consideration." ~ BOD ~ 08:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Noo The is no reason to prescribe the addition of the celebrity Dana International to the coverage of this topic, she would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE. ~ BOD ~ 22:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. Set up to achieve one outcome. Bastun 08:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Hmm, but the wording is option B is taken directly from the discussion above this. Various editors' objections to it as OR is why this RfC was opened in the first place. Nothing precludes you from inserting an option C that you think is a better alternative. If it actually the best of the three, people are apt to support it, even if they previously selected one of the extant two options being asked about.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@ User:SMcCandlish I have taken your advice and inseted option 1E below after a couple of too visible messy rewrites, its not perfect but I it is believe a better option than 1A & 1B. ~ BOD ~ 11:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• çomment Option B - * I made a similar point to bodney and bastun here. A sizeable number of editors are trying to push for a status quo where every sentence relating to or about this manifesto in relation to transphobia either needs to be inserted as a quote verbatim from the manifesto itself or should not be included at all. which is to put it mildly not a good way to go about summarizing an entire manifesto and the stuff people say about it. And to pretend any of it is not about trans people is extremely disingenuous when J.K.R herself titled her tweet introducing it "terf wars" and when the entire document is one long string of notorious transphobic dog whistles. (ranging from claiming Maya Forstater lost her job over some tweets rather than creating a hostile work environment to the infamous trans people in bathrooms argument.) it is disingenuous to try and single out individual quotes, as happened once again here. It is even more disingenuous to not advertise the fact that you've set up an RFC on either of the two relevant talk pages while accusing others of trying to create a WP:POVFORK for trying to start a civil discussion about how much information about that same issue should be present in either of the two pages covering the same subject. on the talk page, where every relevant editor can, and should, and should be able to, see it. Not exactly a show of good sportmanship here, crossroads.

As for dana international: no, she should not be included. We are currently mentioning only two extremely large and relevant Trans charities on the main page and only one on the politics one. I think including one individual transgender person would quite clearly be creating a false balance.--Licks-rocks (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed Dana International's personal opinion is a WP:FALSEBALANCE when compared to non profit organisations representing 1,000s of transexuals. ~ BOD ~ 10:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly Rowling, the famous author and essayist, underlines with deliberate purpose about who the target of her words is, when she choose to use the accronym TERF. ~ BOD ~ 14:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

minor clarification: it is not so much about the target as the topic. She says elsewhere in the document itself that she doesn't consider herself a terf and that she doesn't like that word et cetera, but that she refers to the article in those terms does give us a good indication of what it is about.--Licks-rocks (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The statement We are currently mentioning only two extremely large and relevant Trans charities on the main page and only one on the politics one is false. As of when that comment was made, at the main page three charities are mentioned (GLAAD, Trevor Project, Mermaids), and at the politics page , two are mentioned (GLAAD, Mermaids), with GLAAD mentioned two separate times. Crossroads 15:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I was only looking at the most recent controversy. That being said my point still stands even when you want to include her in the text above that. Only the biggest and most relevant names are mentioned. Dana simply does not fit that bill by any stretch of the imagination. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• 1. Option A Option B is a misrepresentation of what she actually said.
  2. Yes It should be noted that she recived condemnation from organizations, but also support from some individual transpersons. EileenAlphabet (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option C While I think this is a topic best avoided like the plague, I am convinced by SMcCandlish. The whole thing should be removed from the article until this thing settles down and we see where all the pieces land. Already, I think we're giving it way too much weight. We're not a newspaper, so we can afford to wait and see how it all plays out, and get it right. But we shouldn't be joining and fueling this thing. We don't need to keep up-to-the-minute reporting, which is why I find the alternative proposal below to be not even worth commenting on. If not, then I go with option A, because B is a mischaracterization, which appears to be people reading into it something that is not actually there. Zaereth (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• 1A is clearly preferable to 1B, for the same reasons that everyone else mentions: A is an accurate summary of her views, whereas B is a misrepresentation. Also, per Crossroads, this is a topic that certainly deserves to be covered in her biography, but not at great length; I agree that two paragraphs is probably sufficient. --JBL (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

But 1A is simply not an accurate summary of her views, it covers just one of the many questionasble comments Rowlings made in her essay, so it is automatically not an accurate summary. Context is everything Rowlings did not make this comment in isolation, but in a long and purposefully worded essay about transsexuals that contained several other (I would argue erronious) statements about transexuals, it should not be read or treated in isolation without taking the rest of her essay into consideration.

Plus the wording chosen has been partially selected. What she actual said In refering to the safety of "natal girls and women" ... "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. The clear implication here is that she is refering to primarily about a non-natal females (e,g. transsexuals) who have obtained a gender certificate not men in general. Her own personal story of being a victim of abuse is seperate, it is in a seperate later paragraph, it was not in a pubic bathroom nor was a transperson involved. ~ BOD ~ 00:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Option 1.B should not be used because it is simply not supported by sources "she stated that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women" cannot be supported by what she wrote in the essay. To put all this into context as you say, the current social and political debates focus on the (controversial) issue of whether tranmswomen should enter into spaces designated only for women. Views on this vary from one 'extreme' to another. As such, you have on one hand people who hold the view that no transwomen, not even post-op transexuals who have gone though many surgeries and hormonal treatments, should be allowed in, and on the other hand you have people who argue that any man from the street, even if he didn't do anything medically, legally or even socially (ie. he presents himself in ways non-distinguishable form 'ordinary' men) should be allowed in merely by saying he identifies as a woman. I would argue that most people fall somewhere in between these views, leaning more or less towards one end or the other. We have no clue where Rowling stands on this, but to keep Option 1.B would imply that she stands exactly at the one pole which wants any tramswoman out of women's spaces, no exceptions allowed ever. There's no evidence Rowling holds this view, and we should take WP:BLP and WP:OR very seriously. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:55EC (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

FIRSTLY: you need to read the quote in context, it was in an essay full of the dangers of concerns relating to transsexuals, yes she did say she knew some transsexuals, but whole essay was mostly about transsexuals. SECONDLY: In refering to the safety of "natal girls and women i.e. Non Trans Women ... "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones i.e. TRANSWOMEN with Gender certificates –then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.

are people in this RfC unable to read. ~ BOD ~ 01:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Modified ~ BOD ~ 01:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

You ask "are people in this RfC unable to read?" Well, people are able to read, and they've probably read WP:OR too. Rowling wrote an essay, and obviously it can be interpreted in various ways, but the editors' own interpretation of it cannot be stated as "what Rowling said." Even if she was referring only to "transwomen with Gender certificates" as you say, there's no evidence that she was referring to all transwomen with Gender certificates: maybe she wants some transwomen with Gender certificates to enter (ie. those who had undergone a certain degree of medical treatments) and other transwomen with Gender certificates (ie. those who have either not undergone any medical treatment or are not 'sufficiently' transitioned) not to enter. We can't just pretend to read her mind. Option 1.B implies she doesn't want any transwoman ever to enter, and the claim that she holds this view is not supported by sources. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:55EC (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

You are adding distinctions and qualifiers she did not make. ~ BOD ~ 02:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Look, I think we're going around in circles. I and others have explained that Rowling did not state what is claimed in Option 1.B. If you want to interpret her essay like that, that's your prerogative, but this does not mean your subjective interpretation of her essay can be presented as fact, as being Rowling's view. And I wasn't "adding distinctions and qualifiers she did not make", I said "maybe she wants ", ie. I offered a possible subjective interpretation of what she wrote, I didn't say that this is what she meant. But our subjective interpretations do not belong in the article as they cannot be equated with Rowling's views. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:55EC (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the IP 100% here: there are valid critiques of Rowlings' position (e.g.), and those deserve to be presented (keeping in mind due weight etc.), but misrepresenting her position in order to cast it in a worse light should not be on the table. --JBL (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Also you claim: " it was in an essay full of the dangers of transsexuals". The essay was not "full of the dangers of transsexuals"; quite on the contrary she explicitly writes: "I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection". Please note that WP:BLP applies to talk pages, too. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:55EC (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I accept your advise and changed dangers to concerns relating to transexuals, which can be negative or positive, but they are about transexuals. ~ BOD ~ 02:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• 1: Option A. and 2: Yes. Option B is a distortion of what she said. It seems to me that the arguments for option B seem to be, essentially, that such a distortion is necessary in order to convey the "correct" message, and prevent readers from reaching a different conclusion than what editors feel she meant. I feel that is inappropriate editorializing. There is no unified view on what she said, that we can point to as the definitive opinion of mainstream RS, so we should pick the version that is the most accurate, which is option A. As to part 2, I think Dana International's opinion has gotten plenty of press to be considered WP:DUE. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• 2: No. Dana doesn't have enough notability in this context. It feels extremely odd to have the name of some random and little known Israeli singer among those of Harry Potter stars. Reuters mentioned her just as an illustrative example that JK also received (very little, but still) support from some LGBT ppl. and that is exactly what the article should state (without mentioning names for now, until we have someone with more notability and contextual relevance). Daveout (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1: Option A Agree with other above that option B is a distortion. 2: Yes I would also agree with SMCandlish that this would be better left out altogether, however, if critical voices are to be included, then supportive ones should be too, in the interests of balance. AutumnKing (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1: Option A. This shouldn't even have to be asked. Option B obviously misrepresents what she stated.

2: I don't feel strongly about this inclusion, but I don't see an issue with including Dana International. I stated before that the sources are clear that Rowling and Dana International have sort of a friendship or acquaintance status. So she is not just some random person to Rowling. And I've already stated that we should include support material if due. I also think it's a valid point to not make it seem as though Rowling was universally condemned or as though all transgender people disagree with her and/or consider her transophbic. I doubt that most do, and I state that as someone who is very familiar with the discourse on the topic and which trans voices get amplified and/or more support in the media.

Length: I do think this topic should be covered in the article, given the amount of press it got. But we have the Politics of J. K. Rowling article for the in-depth material. No need to repeat the same exact thing, with the same length, in both articles. Should employ WP:Summary style. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. With upmost respect for all editors so far involved, espicially the RfC starter, I request we restart this RfC and insert Option 1E below into this RfC. 1E because the have been several other proposals suggested. I do this because I seriously believe that both 1A and 1B are flawed and the new option is correct. I do apologise for my delay in proposing this, I have never made a RfC or a proposal that effects a RfC before, and do not know the process. I plan to find out how to do this tomorrow/sunday as I am not well atm. I am tired so if the is any reactions/advice good or negative I might respond tomorrow. ~ BOD ~ 21:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I've often seen new proposals done in a separate section, as you did below. RfCs are not started over, but you can ping participants to see if anyone switches to your proposal. Crossroads 22:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No need to restart the RfC. I also don't see how it's flawed. If an amendment to the RfC is agreed on, or just adding a note immediately underneath it is agreed on, with respect to your proposal, that can be done. But no need to restart. I'm sure editors who have voted don't want to repeat themselves. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding 2, Dana should not be included; her opinion is not due AFAICT, and there seems to be agreement on keeping the section relatively brief, so excluding her minority view seems preferable to having her plus other trans people whose comments have gotten similar levels of media coverage, "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". As for 1, neither option is ideal, although as long as this thread is not closed as mandating an exact wording, I suppose the issues can prbably be worked out. -sche (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• For this specific RfC ... 1: Option A and 2: Abstain. ¶ I will wait for another, official, separate RfC before weighing in. Otherwise, I get confused. :0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1: Option A , B is a transparent synth of what editors imagine she is really saying when it claims JKR said "that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women". B might be acceptable if it were clear that this is how SOME commentators reacted - but putting the text in WP:VOICE and JKR voice fundamentally misrepresents both JKR and sources. 2: Omit, but also omit all the actors, celebrities who sided one way or the other - why should they be any more relevant than a random selection of H Potter readers? If a brief way of summarising the main points made pro and con can be found, so be it, otherwise, omit all. Pincrete (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1. Option B: directly before the quote given above, Reuters characterizes it as But she gave examples of where she thought demands by trans activists were dangerous to women. So saying that she stated that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women is not WP:SYNTH at all. It's nearly a direct quote from the article. (I'd accept hewing even closer to the phrasing of the article if we want: something like stated that she thought some demands of trans activists were dangerous to women.) 2: Omit: an Israeli pop star isn't notable in this case for any reason other than that she's a trans woman who defended Rowling. But that strikes me as WP:FALSEBALANCE to insist on including one defender when nearly all other trans people and trans organizations were pretty soundly against her. Loki (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

That is the source's characterization. If one is to go by it, it should be given WP:In-text attribution. Enough reliable sources simply cited Rowling's own words without trying to put words into her mouth.

And "when nearly all other trans people were pretty soundly against her."? Not true, by simply looking at Rowling's Twitter feed. That's why the aforementioned Blaire White noted the many trans people agreeing with Rowling on Twitter. And AfterEllen states, "But J.K. Rowling's words also found widespread support." Of course, the trans (and non-trans) people who agree with Rowling in part or in whole have generally been ignored by media sources. And I think I have a good idea of how you feel about White and AfterEllen (for example; AfterEllen being considered anti-trans, a view supported by some LGBT sites who argue that it is); so no need to argue my points by giving your personal feelings on White or where you think AfterEllen falls in the context of reliable sources on transgender issues. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Is the *blog ~ AfterEllen a reliable source? are twitter or YouTube reliable sources? let us in Misplaced Pages try stick to the real unambiguous reliable sources in our discussion, as the articles can only use Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, but you know this as you are undoubtedly a very highly experienced editor. ~ BOD ~ 10:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, AfterEllen counts as a WP:Reliable source, and we use it in a number of Misplaced Pages articles. This includes articles it was used in long before certain LGBT sites got together and deemed it transphobic. It is not simply some blog. And on the topic of blogs, WP:NEWSBLOG is clear. And unlike PinkNews, AfterEllen is not listed at WP:RSPSOURCES as a generally unreliable source. That stated, we also apply WP:CONTEXTMATTERS when we use sources. In this context, AfterEllen isn't the best source to use to state "Rowling's words also found widespread support.", given the controversy surrounding AfterEllen on trans issues. It, however, is not a source that is blacklisted, including from being used for its own personal commentary on trans issues. And regardless, it is not like I suggested using it, YouTube, or Twitter as a source in the article. My main point in this "what people are saying" case, as you very well know, is that it's absolutely not true that only a few trans people agree with Rowling. Like I noted above, there are trans figures, including Buck Angel, who agree with her (at least in part). Someone like Miss London disagrees with her on some things and agrees with her on other things. And yet others, as we know because of their media coverage, disagree with her completely. I replied on this specific aspect to give a more well-rounded picture. We are allowed to point to what Twitter and other outlets are stating without arguing to use such outlets as sources in the article. This section also includes significant debate that is not solely related to improving the article in question. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If we're going to simply quote Rowling directly, we might as well use her manifesto as a primary source, no? The reason Misplaced Pages prefers secondary sources is to get the exact sort of "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" that Reuters provides here. Loki (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, we have secondary sources quoting Rowling's own words. A secondary source misquoting Rowling or putting words into her mouth is no excuse for us to do so. That is why most editors thus far have voted against the current wording. And like I indicated, we are in the habit of giving secondary sources in-text attribution. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, "But she gave examples of where she thought demands by trans activists were dangerous to women." really isn't the same as "She stated that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women." At least the "But she" wording is vague/broad enough to cover the matter without misrepresenting her points. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Option 1A which most editors have voted for is based on the Reuters article quote that misses out the middle part of Rowling's words, changing the emphasis. Other reliable news sources like the Independent, Guardian and NBC*, when quoting her own words do not exclude the direct transsexual reference in the center of the passage. Option 1B is thus a closer report of her own words in the passage in her essay as as recorded fully by the majority of the reliable sources.

"When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside."

The clear implication here is that she is referring to primarily about transsexuals who have obtained a gender certificate not men in general. If you miss out half words from a quoted passage you are of course going to change what comes across to the reader. Context is everything Rowlings did not make this comment in isolation, but in a long and purposefully worded essay about transsexuals that contained several other (erroneous) statements about transexuals, making clear that she considers transmen as women and transwomen as men. If you let transsexual women in (who are really men according to Rowlings) then you might as well allowing all men in, that is the danger according to Rowlings.

~ BOD ~ 09:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The Reuters article in question here says this:

"Rowling, 54, said she believed most trans people posed zero threat to others, were vulnerable and deserved protection. But she gave examples of where she thought demands by trans activists were dangerous to women.

“When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman ... then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.”

The Reuters article should not be used to support option 1.B, that would be a misleading WP:OR interpretation. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:55E7 (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

BUT this R f C is not about Reuters but about JK Rowling and what she said in her essay as reported in all the reliable sources (Reuters is simply just one incomplete report of Rowling's words). So we can and should use all the relevant Reliable Sources Not Just Reuters. And other equally Reliable sources do clearly support 1B, which is definitely not WP:OR, but a closer reporting of the majority of the reliable secondary sources and her own words. Personally I prefer 1E which is even closer, and does not reduce Rowling's whole Essay to just toilets. ~ BOD ~ 10:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I made reference specifically to that Reuters article because it was brought up into this debate. And with regard to what you say that "And other equally Reliable sources do clearly support 1B, which is definitely not WP:OR, but a proper and closer reporting of the majority of the reliable sources" I find no evidence that option 1B is "a proper and closer reporting of the majority of the reliable sources". I'm sure that there are sources which reported it that way - there has been so much written about this in the media in so many sources that you'll find a huge variety of interpretations of what she wrote, but we must use our discretion on how we select sources and most importantly if we give interpretations of what Rowling wrote in her essay we must attribute the interpretation to the source, not say it in Misplaced Pages voice. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:55E7 (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

We are in reality discussing what is actually going to go in the BLP article on JK Rowling. What has confused things is not 1B, but the use of Reuters to support 1B, when other top level, equally highly reliable selected sources like the Independent, Guardian, NBC, Telegraph (and her own word) do support 1B. The is no point arguing on a pin head about a citation when it only gives half the facts. ~ BOD ~ 11:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

User: ~ BOD ~ , you should not be changing what you wrote after people have already answered (unless you make it clear you made the change, or unless it's just a typo). As for the sources that are supposed to support option 1B that you quoted, they do not actually support it.

• The Guardian article says this

She accused her critics of “groupthink” and “relentless attacks”, saying that while she believed trans people needed and deserved protection due to the high rates of domestic and sexual violence they endure, she did not agree that trans women who have not undergone hormone therapy or surgical transition should have access to single-sex spaces.

Option 1B implies that Rowling does not want any transwoman inside, while the Guardian says "she did not agree that trans women who have not undergone hormone therapy or surgical transition should have access to single-sex spaces.".

• NBC says this:

Later in the piece, where Rowling reveals that she is a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, she uses this traumatic history to discuss her fifth reason why she's "deeply concerned about the consequences of the current trans activism."

"So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth," she wrote.''

As you can see, NBC simply gives a direct quote from the essay.

• The Independent article is discussing mostly bathrooms as they relate to JK Rowling's essay and to trans debates, but even that article does not support option 1B. The whole article should be read, but here is the most relevant part:

"In her letter, Rowling mentions her “concerns” around “single-sex spaces”, which rapidly translates to “bathrooms”. She links those concerns to her own experiences as a survivor of violence and sexual assault, which I’m certainly not here to dispute. Rowling then insists that she “wants trans women to be safe”, then quickly adds: “At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe.”

And here comes the heart of her argument: “When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.”

Rowling’s phrasing matters, especially considering that her line of work suggests she knows a fair amount about word choice. In my opinion, it's hard to interpret the words “any man who believes or feels he’s a woman” as anything other than a pointed reference to transgender women who – going by the rest of Rowling’s sentence – hasn't been taking hormones and/or hasn't had gender confirmation surgeries.

Neither of these articles support option 1B. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:55E7 (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Quick reply when I did my relatively minor tweak at 12:16 I was unaware of your reply at 12:15 and I apologies, but I was in my editor with no idea of your edit at the time. The edit made was not a big change. ~ BOD ~ 15:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

There was also another edit that you did at 00:05 (with the edit summary "tried to tidy up my response but think I made it more unreadable") that was done to an older post from several days ago. When people respond to a post they respond to the exact wording of it, and making changes, even if such changes may not be major, still interferes with the flow of the conversation for those who read it subsequently. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:55E7 (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I can not respond to the selected passages you choose atm as I am busy RL for most of the rest of the day. But I am happy you posted your reply, because these sources all quote the washroom bit of Rowlings passage fully and do support 1B. ~ BOD ~ 15:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The IP is correct that 1B is a problem because the issue for Rowling isn't trans women in general, but rather that anyone can get a gender certificate with no medical transition whatsoever. And her statement even with the middle portion is clear that her concern is men very easily getting a certificate via dishonesty even though they do not actually identify as anything other than men. Crossroads 16:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

On 10 June 2020, J.K. Rowling published an essay, "J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues". It, and the reactions to it, have been and are being widely reported on in the media. As such, it is appropriate for Misplaced Pages to cover the essay, the background to it, and the resulting reactions. As the essay is over 3,600 words in length, selecting particular phrases or mandating here and now what sentences we quote from the essay, what we report about her views and what others say about them, when this is a live and ongoing issue, is needlessly restrictive, will result in needless disruption, and would appear to be a breach of several Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Our "About" page states: "Misplaced Pages is written by open and transparent consensus—an approach that has its pros and cons. Censorship or imposing "official" points of view is extremely difficult to achieve and usually fails after a time." Why should the articles in question not follow this guideline, and the principles of reporting neutrally what the various reliable sources say by discussion and consensus? Therefore, this proposal mandates that there will be no mandated or sanctioned wording on this issue for the time being. Bastun 20:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. This is a developing story and mandating what we can and can't say or quote, now, is entirely premature. I especially take issue with cherry-picking one or two of many issues discussed in the 3,600-word essay, particularly Rowling's revelation about being a victim of domestic abuse and sexual assault. These are important issues, absolutely, but completely separate to the issue of transgender rights. Bastun 20:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support this seems far more open and neutral starting point on a still unfolding issue in all the relevant various reliable sources. ~ BOD ~ 20:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close as a transparent and disruptive attempt to thwart the ongoing RfC whose very purpose is to reach an open and transparent consensus and to report neutrally what the various reliable sources say by discussion and consensus, and to avoid Censorship or imposing "official" points of view. Crossroads 20:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Genuinely at a loss here. We should close this proposal "to avoid Censorship or imposing "official" points of view" but instead adopt your proposal above, which mandates exactly to impose an official wording... Bastun 23:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Open I invite all to read the Comments in the flawed RfC presented above this proposal, where several editors have directly questioned the neutrality and wording of both proposals in the RfC. Sometimes in the middle of a discussion or RfC a better proposal comes along. This third less rigid proposal seems far more likely to achieve a open and transparent consensus and to report neutrally what the various reliable sources say by discussion and consensus, and is far more clearly designed to avoid Censorship or imposing "official" points of view. than the flawed prescribed choices that the orginal RfC presents. You can not label someone disruptive, just because you disagree with their alternative valid proposal. ~ BOD ~ 21:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• I don't really see the point of this. WP:Consensus can change, so no conclusion reached in the above RfC could be permanent and immutable. The central assumption of this alternative proposal – that there could be a long-term "mandated or sanctioned wording on this issue" that isn't responsive to later "open and transparent consensus" about "cover the essay, the background to it, and the resulting reactions" – simply isn't correct. Bastun is correct in how WP is written and re-written, but not correct in what an RfC like this is even capable of doing. If the RfC were to conclude, for example, that we should not mention this stuff at all in Rowling's article, as too-trivial "celeb gossip" (WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#NEWS), that could change a single day later if a bunch of high-quality sources make a renewed and bigger deal out of it due to further relevant events unfolding. Cf. WP:NOTPAPER; we can revise at any time, and any decision we ever make about content is "for now", pretty much by definition (except when it comes to stuff that must not be included at all, e.g. commercial advertising, unsourced negative claims about living people, promotion of fringe science in WP's own voice, etc.). In short, this "alternative proposal" is not one, but is simply a confusingly worded restatement of what we always do anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it is better to let the RfC above run its course. I won't deny that it might be necessary to get some kind of working solution, at least for the near future, to avoid further edit warring. I'd rather see an additional option than a proposal to close, but since there's no one volunteering a third option, we'll have to stick with the two we have now. Should someone propose a decent third option in the future, we can always re-open the discussion then.--Licks-rocks (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe this third proposal could be officially added to the above RfC ~ BOD ~ 21:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  The problem is that this defeats the point of an RfC, which is precisely why it's disruptive. The very purpose of an RfC is to determine the outcome of a contentious issue that has not been resolved by the usual talk page discussion. I've looked at Talk:J. K. Rowling and it's clear why this is necessary. The discussions go on and on and on and haven't achieved much of anything. This proposal would just be a continuation of the status quo ante, which clearly wasn't working. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 21:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  But half of us, espicially the other side of the argument, have questioned the whole wording of the RfC. So thats why I was quick to prefer a more neutral start :) ~ BOD ~ 21:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'll add again that anyone is free to add a third suggested wording, and if it's better than A or B we'd likely support it. But "just decide nothing and keep arguing in circles forever" isn't an option. I would also like to have seen a more studiously neutral RfC wording, but most RfCs are not great in this regard. We parse them well enough and get through it anyway. It's not like an RfC writer's personal stance cannot be discerned in 99% of RfCs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  To be hopelessly honest While I am personally affected by JKR's essay and do object to the wording of the RfC I lack confidence in myself, both as a wordsmith and clever enough editor to be able to put together that better option. To my brain RfCs are still a new thing. ~ BOD ~ 22:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Crossroads - this is transparently disruptive. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 21:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• This proposal is meaningless and should be withdrawn. --JBL (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Trying to be constructive how about adding this alternative proposal BELOW to the above RfC

1.D Rowlings essay contained a series of comments about transgender annd transexual people, one of subjects covered was

"In refering to the safety of "natal girls and women" ..."When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside." Improvements gratefully accepted. I have no idea how to add it to the RfC and would be happy to recieve quality improvements. ~ BOD ~ 00:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Not a fan of the MOS:SCAREQUOTES around "natal girls and women". The issue with the longer quote is that this is not based solely on WP:Secondary sources like the other proposals are. It would be objected that we as editors should not be deciding what is significant enough in the primary source (the essay) to be worth quoting rather than sticking to what secondary sources consider significant. Crossroads 03:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I do accept that I have made a very basic error by going back to Rowling's own words and the proposal needs improvement. My intention of using the quotes around the safety of "natal girls and women" was to simply highlight that this option starts from Rowling's view on gender expressed in this one paragrah about washrooms you have chosen, that Rowlings was not mainly talking about her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, but about her worries about women & girls and transwomen & transmen. In your own proposals you have decided what is the significant highlight of all the many reports of her 3600 word essay, and you based this only one single WP:Secondary source, Reuters, to be used as the basis for this RfC. I do not understand why you are only using one single secondary source that supports 1A and ignoring all the many other reliable sources that cover Rowlings essay, and support 1B, Bastun' proposal and my own attempt.

The are many other equally valid sources that discuss Rowlings tweets and essay, here are just a few

Telegraph

Independent

BBC

Guardian

Guardian

Los Angeles Times

Independent

~ BOD ~ 11:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

NBC

Additional academic critique by Professor Sophie Grace Chappell (a transwoman) in the Crooked Timber ~ BOD ~ 17:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Option 1E (To be added to the above JK Rowling RfC)

Note: This Option is still a work in progress, I hope to have it finalized by the end of the weekend and welcome any recommendations.

Amended proposal "Following adverse reaction to her Tweets on gender and transsexual people, Rowling published a 3,600 word essay on the 10 June 2020, titled "J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues", in which she details five reasons why she is "worried about the new trans activism regarding transgender people in relation to natal women and girls." Concerns covered included the increased number of young trans men and the use of public washrooms and changing rooms by trans women. Rowling claimed that equality laws relating to letting trans women into women's toilets, even those with gender confirmation certificates, would be "opening the door to all men who wish to come inside". Mermaids replied that "We consider it abusive and damaging when people conflate trans women with male sexual predators.""

reworded following recommendations Amended proposal "Following adverse reaction to her Tweets on gender and transsexual people, Rowling published a 3,600 word essay on the 10 June 2020, titled "J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues", in which she details five reasons why she is "worried about the new trans activism regarding transgender people in relation to natal women and girls." Issues covered included in respect of the rise in the number of young transmen Rowling's expressed a concern that women who are not actually trans men are feeling pressure to transition. Another issue was the use of public washrooms and changing rooms, Rowling wrote regarding a proposed equality law relating to letting trans women into women's toilets, even those with gender confirmation certificates, would be "opening the door to all men who wish to come inside". Mermaids replied and "We consider it abusive and damaging when people conflate trans women with male sexual predators.

ReDraft 3

I have made major changes shown in purple, simply to make it easy for other editors to see the changes. I need to and will add citations from secondary sources done. Rowlings writes gender confirmation certificate whe she means Gender Recognition Certificate. Added Gender Recognition Certificate with wikilink to the Act, as adviced.

Option 1E

Following adverse reaction to her Tweets on gender and transsexual people, Rowling published a 3,600 word essay on the 10 June 2020, titled "J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues", in which she details five reasons why she is "worried about the new trans activism regarding transgender people in relation to natal women and girls." Among these reasons, she mentions her charity for women and children, being an ex-teacher, her interest in free speech, a concern about "the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition" and her experience as a victim of sexual and domestic abuse. Regarding the growth in the number of young transmen, Rowling said she believed misogyny and sexism, fuelled by social media, were reasons behind the 4,400% increase (in the UK) in the number of transmen transitioning in the past decade. Linking her own experience of sexual assault with her concern over transgender access to women only spaces, Rowling wrote regarding a proposed Scottish equality law, which she (mistakenly/note 1) believed would result in letting trans women into women's toilets. She wrote "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates" (Gender Recognition Certificate) "may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth." Mermaids, a British charity that supports gender variant and transgender youth, stated in an open letter that “To address the core of your point, trans rights do not come at the expense of women’s rights,” and "We consider it abusive and damaging when people conflate trans women with male sexual predators."(note2)"(note3)

.

Note 1 (it’s not an offence in UK law for a man to enter the ladies, and nobody needs to produce any proof of sex, is already possible, both in law and in practice, for “male sexual predators” to access women’s toilets for nefarious purposes. )

Optional Note 2 Britsh public attitude regards Transgender people using public toilets section ~ see pp 95-100 (espicially Table 5 View of transgender people using public toilets.) British Social Attitudes 2017 https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39196/bsa34_full-report_fin.pdf

Optional Note 3 Back in 2016, a survey shared by Reuters found that 60 percent of trans people had avoided using public bathrooms out of fear of confrontation, citing previous occurrences of assault or harassment, verbal abused or attacked by people who don’t think they should be there. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-survey/u-s-transgender-people-harassed-in-public-restrooms-landmark-survey-idUSKBN13X0BK U.S. transgender people harassed in public restrooms: landmark survey) ~ BOD ~ 00:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore?

~ BOD ~ 10:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources all the above, but these two below at the very least cover the quotes:

Further advise is welcome. I would like to add this proposal to the existing RfC, but do not know how to do it. I still scared of my peers and unsure if I have got everything right. ~ BOD ~ 14:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Updated ~ BOD ~ 15:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Updated following advice ~ BOD ~ 17:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC) fixed error made during my last update. ~ BOD ~ 18:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The claim that "Rowling wrote regarding a proposed Scottish equality law, which she (mistakenly/note 1) believed would result in letting trans women into women's toilets" is not supported and is WP:OR. There's no evidence of what Rowling believes about that proposed law; in the essay she addresses toilets before she addresses that proposed law (and she also addresses other single-sex spaces, not just toilets). That formulation makes it sound as "she opposes the proposed law because such a law would lead to men entering into women's toilets". That's disingenuous, the essay suggests she likely opposes the law for numerous other reasons. Also "equality law" is POV. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:43CB (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that rowlings bathroom claim directly implicates gender recognition certificates, that's neither OR nor POV, that's just a fact. And yes, there's secondary sources that have noted this. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Gender certificates are one thing, the proposed Scottish law is another thing. Rowling does not link directly the proposed Scottish law to toilets. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:43CB (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Rowling on toilets (linked to "gender certificates" ie the Gender Recognition Act 2004): "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside."
• Rowling on her opposition to proposed changes to Scottish law (not linked to toilets) "On Saturday morning, I read that the Scottish government is proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans, which will in effect mean that all a man needs to ‘become a woman’ is to say he’s one. To use a very contemporary word, I was ‘triggered’." 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:43CB (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. It has the same POV issues as 1B, making the changing room matter out to be about trans women only. "Claimed" is a problem per WP:CLAIM. "Equality laws" is POV. There's no point in saying "five problems" if we don't say what they are. "Increased number of young trans men" is another misinterpetation, because Rowling's concern is that women who are not actually trans men are feeling pressure to transition. Use of "transsexual" will lead to complaints. Let's just quote her directly. Crossroads 22:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

a.) "Let's just quote her directly" :) But you already kindly advised me above to use Secondary Sources for a proposal....but if we are she did not write "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman ... then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside" but "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. notice the middle bit is about transwomen. I personally believe 1A has a POV issue too when it frames the question from Rowlings personal experience as survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and not from the main subject of her essay that is the relationship between transpeople and who she describes as natal women.

b.) Thanks for the advice re claimed.

c.) Equality Law is not POV they are fact, though if you read academic critique of Rowlings Essay by Professor Sophie Grace Chappell (a transwoman) in the Crooked Timber you will realise that Rowlings (and myself) was mistaken about this whole topic.

d.) Your corrections regards the pressure on Rowling's concern is that women who are not actually trans men are feeling pressure to transition. are perfectly valid and an improvement.

e,) Regards the use of the term Transexual i respect to your experience, as a Transperson myself I get unsure myself, mostly I call myself Me. I am not an activist, I am far too uncertain even two plus decades after everything. ~ BOD ~ 23:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

"There's no point in saying she mentioned five problems if we don't say what they are" I don't necessarily agree with that, mostly just because it definitely gives the reader a clearer picture of how the text was set up. The phrase "among these" was made for exactly this purpose. It is definitely better than just not acknowledging the rest of the text in favour of a single quote, as you still seem intent on doing.--Licks-rocks (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. This option is worse than the other options for me, for a variety of reasons. I don't actually see why you felt the need to reword the struckthrough proposal to this one.

1. "that women who are not actually trans men are feeling pressure to transition" - this is really unpleasant weasel wording for me. It definitely plays into the generically transphobic rhetoric, and I'd confidently call it a dogwhistle for that. It is not encyclopedic language. Misplaced Pages presents the facts. It doesn't emphasise them with italics and lead someone hand-in-hand to a conclusion that some transgender men should be discredited for...generally really vague reasons, easily changeable from person to person. It upsets me to see this presented as something we could add to Misplaced Pages.

2. "Rowling wrote regarding a proposed equality law relating to letting trans women into women's toilets, even those with gender confirmation certificates" - trans women already use women's toilets. There is no UK law banning anyone from using a toilet because it doesn't line up with their passport. Gender recognition certificates - they're not called "Gender confirmation certificates", as the barrier to getting one doesn't require surgery anymore - aren't and never have been used for this purpose, and hopefully never will. Gender is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act of 2010; it means that anyone can use the toilet aligning with their gender identity, and that they have a right to do so. I used the men's loos before I even started testosterone, and I haven't even been seen by the GIC yet. That was my right as a transgender person; to imply that trans people at present aren't allowed into the right toilets just isn't true.

Point is: I don't think this is an improvement, or necessary. I think what you struckthrough was the better option, in all honesty, apart from the bit about gender confirmation certificates needing changing. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I am grateful for your input. Atm I see my option as a work in progress, to be improved. Its 1.30 am here, so I will have a better look tomorrow at your recommendations.

I may have reacted too quickly from the advice and wanting to be very co-operative. Rowlings does talk about pressure, but in a much more subtle way than I have expressed.

You are exactly right about UK law regards the whole washroon/toilet issue, the trouble is Rowlings and many of the Secondary sources missed this fact. I want this proposed option to be the best it can be rather than be fixed at this stage. ~ BOD ~ 00:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the section on the rise of transmen, removed the shorthand pressure to a fuller description of her believes. Also sorry I forgot to add regards gender confirmation certificates, its Rowlings words I am quoteing her directly (maybe I should have a correction beside her error mid quote but not sure how to present properly...i have made an attempt) ~ BOD ~ 17:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

A couple of things to be clarified with regard to the legal issues addressed above:

• the Equality Act 2010 does not contain gender, as such, as a protected characteristic; the protected characteristics are: "age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation." Gender reassignment is defined as such: "7 Gender reassignment: (1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex." So while gender reassignment does not have to include any medical treatment being or having been performed, and it is sufficient for the trans person to be "proposing to undergo a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex", it is not exactly correct to say that: "Gender is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act of 2010; it means that anyone can use the toilet aligning with their gender identity, and that they have a right to do so" because one's gender identity doesn't have to include an intention to do anything medically. On the other hand, you are right when you say that: "trans women already use women's toilets. There is no UK law banning anyone from using a toilet because it doesn't line up with their passport" and it's also true that Gender certificates "aren't and never have been used for this purpose" as you put it. Indeed, people entering a toilet, is not, in and of itself, illegal, regardless of the toilet. In most cases, enforcement of sex separation in toilets is more a social norm and regulations are rather the informal responsibility of those in charge of the toilets in question. (this whole explanation may be rather irrelevant to the topic, but I saw that one editor brought the Equality Act 2010 so I though it would be good to clarify).
• If we want to address laws (though I think it's uncalled for) we should take into account that Rowling is based in Scotland and Scottish law is different from English law. Rowling was talking about a proposed law in Scotland; she wrote in her essay: "On Saturday morning, I read that the Scottish government is proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans, which will in effect mean that all a man needs to ‘become a woman’ is to say he’s one." 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:4238 (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Again Useful feed back. Thanks. ~ BOD ~ 14:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The better question that should be asked is should toilets really be addressed in that one paragraph summary of her essay? It really makes a mockery of the 3600 words essay to summarize it as "look what Rowling says about toilets!!!". Major issues addressed in the essay:

• concerns about the fact that the view that sex is determined by biology is not protected in law as it relates to the possibility of employment discrimination against people who hold such views (the Maya Forstater legal case)
• concerns about lesbians not dating transwomen with male genitals being called bigots
• concerns about how some aspects of trans activism relate to children's, gays' and women's rights
• concerns about freedom of speech
• concerns about how the label TERF is being used
• concerns about female prisoners and survivors of domestic and sexual abuse (add prisons here, not just toilets, with regard to sex separation)
• concerns about sex being replaced with gender as it relates to her activism on multiple sclerosis
• concerns about pressure to transition, increases in number of girls transitioning, loss of fertility after transition process, and possible regret
• concerns about censoring academic research and harassing academics
• concerns that sexualization and scrutiny of girls' bodies and rigid gender roles may lead some girls to transition when that may not be the best solution (here she refers to her own childhood and teen eyes)
• concerns about increased misogyny and silencing of women, and some forms of trans activism not helping at all and reinforcing this negative climate
• concerns about the definition of "woman", of the term "woman" being left without any clear meaning, reduced to abstract feelings of somebody or to gender stereotypes; use of terms she views demeaning and alienating ("menstruators", "people with vulvas")
• concerns about women's safety; here she talks about her own history of abuse and what it meant and still means to her and possibly other women (stressing the need to protect both such women and transwomen, the latter with whom she can also relate as she understands tranwomen' fear of violence through her own experience of violence)
• concerns about public discourse often being virtue signaling rather than substance
• concerns about inability to consider women as a political and biological class, who have common experiences due to their biological sex, denying the importance of biological sex in women's lives

This essay simply cannot be summarized as a paragraph about toilets! 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:4238 (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, we can only reasonably cover aspects that were emphasized by being mentioned in secondary sources. Crossroads 04:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not denying your detailed analysis, but Misplaced Pages is based on what are considered Reliable Secondary sources, not the actual Primary Essay. It took me personally years to accept this, espicially when you consider that I personally believe the media is largely Conservative, white, upper middle class etc controlled & biased etc etc. ~ BOD ~ 14:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course we have to go with what sources say, but with regard to whether we address in any way the toilet issue, we have to also use our judgment: in a 3600 words essay, Rowling addresses toilets once, one single phrase on toilets! That being said, I'm not sure this RFC is going in the right direction. It was meant to be a RFC on specific wording on the issue of toilets regarding a controversy about Rowling's views on access to women's toilets that started on the main talk page; the RFC was not meant for deciding if we address toilets at all or if we also address other things from the essay. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:43CB (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It is the area most raised/reported upon in all the reliable secondary sources. It was Rowlings decision to purposefully throw the bathroom debate as the cherry on top of a her “concerns” around “single-sex spaces”, which rapidly translates to “bathrooms” in her essay. Rowling’s phrasing and choice of examples matters, especially considering she is one of the most celebrated living writers. This version does at least mention 'Women only spaces and refers to the other issues, espicially the growth in the numbers in transmen, which is in reality relates to a tiny figure. ~ BOD ~ 12:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• comment I will have a crack at checking the wording for this later, for now, let's re-include the bit describing Mermaids as a gender non-conforming children's charity. Not everyone is familiar with them, after all. I think it's a bit too soon to oppose or support this, but I'm happy to see someone actually taking me up on my words and creating a new and improved proposal. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• commentUser:Ineffablebookkeeper (talk User:Licks-rocks, User:Crossroads No doubt you are watching the page but as you have responded to previous versions, this is a curtsy note that Option 3 1E has had big redraft. ~ BOD ~ 00:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

commentI think it looks decent. Note 2 is maybe a bit much, and I suspect crossroads will have something to object to it. I do not have time to hunt for sources right now, but several need to be added. I've made a start by tagging some on at the end. I hope they cover a majority of what you've said, but if anything is missing, you'll probably need to either take it out, or find a (preferably secondary) source referencing it. I'm pretty sure the independent covers note one, so you can replace your note with that. --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the refs with a temporary set. ~ BOD ~ 10:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• I oppose this wording as it's basically a he-said-she-said with shades of "my black friend". Guy (help!) 10:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing this, apart from the very short reply from the mermaids charity this is mostly about what she said, infact it could be critised for being onesided. ~ BOD ~ 10:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Covers the essay's five main points without going into too much detail, while the previous versions cherry-pick particular sentences out of a 3,6000 word essay. If we are going to have an RfC on the BLP page decide on the content of a BLP and an associated non-biogrpahical article, then is the way to do it. Bastun 13:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. ~ as proposer as this proposal more accurately reflects both Rowlings whole Essay and the main reliable sources' take on it. We could add from same Mermaids letter “The Gender Recognition Act is about changing your birth certificate only, and nobody has to produce a birth certificate to use the bathroom or a changing room." Plus espicially should add/include that ~ On 19 June 2020, the Equality Act was blocked in the Senate after Republican senator James Lankford opposed it, citing Rowling's essay as part of his reasoning. ~ BOD ~ 19:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• comment I repeat my request to get rid of the notes. They break up the flow of the text and are mostly redundant. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not against their removal, do we need something to explain that nobody has to produce a certificate to use the bathroom or a changing room? ~ BOD ~ 20:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that will be nessecary. --Licks-rocks (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

removed the notes ~ BOD ~ 11:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I still oppose this and with all due respect, see this effort as a dead end. I already said what I support above. These proposals are too long, they contain WP:Editorializing and WP:Synthesis, especially in the notes, and it's just not necessary. Crossroads 01:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

could you please start explaining how and where the WP's you keep citing apply, instead of leaving the people actually trying to create an acceptable new proposal to figure it out on their own? you're honestly being more of a burden than a productive editor right now. Or, since you like WP's so much, please observe WP:NOBRICKS and act accordingly. --Licks-rocks (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I think this version, when it comes to the changing room issue has as much WP:Editorializing and WP:Synthesis as your own proposals (though I fully accept that this maybe considered true by some editors only after I have removed ref to scottish law phrase), espicially if we just look at the single source you use Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? which starts “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling released a 3,600 word essay on Wednesday linking her experience of sexual assault with her concern over transgender access to women only spaces." ~ BOD ~ 12:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. If toilets are addressed, I oppose any formulation other than a direct quote from the essay; just say: "J. K. Rowling expressed concern about single-sex women's spaces, writing: "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside."" Any other attempt to interpret is likely going to break many policies, formulations such as "she (mistakenly/note 1) believed would result in " are unacceptable (as an aside the issue is not just whether it is an offense under the law for a man to enter, which is what the proposed note makes reference; "access" to women's spaces is much more complex, just because a man does not break any law by merely entering there doesn't mean that he cannot be legitimately asked to leave by those in charge of the toilet, and also if he committed a crime against a woman in there the onus would be on him to explain why he was in a woman's single-sex space in first place; we don't know what Rowling means by "throw open the doors", the term that she uses). 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:40A6 (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

To me the link between the scottish law and bathrooms and changing rooms are linked because in the writers 3600 word essay she has it side by side ...to direct quote from the same same section of Rowling's essay

"At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.

On Saturday morning, I read that the Scottish government is proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans, which will in effect mean that all a man needs to ‘become a woman’ is to say he’s one. To use a very contemporary word, I was ‘triggered’."

So it is not unreasonable for readers to be triggered into connecting the two. ~ BOD ~ 11:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Update: After feedback I removed both the notes and reference to the Scottish law link to changing rooms - even if I strongly believe Rowlings intended the reader to connect them, her quote is enough. ~ BOD ~ 11:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Turning Point USA

See WP:BLPGROUP - This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. There is no doubt that the person, Charlie Kirk (activist), is synonymous with Turning Point USA. He was the founder of the organization at age 18.

• See this diff and my edit summary for removal.
• See this revert by Beyond My Ken and his edit summary.

My reason for deleting is primarily that it is a violation of BLP:GROUP, WP:NPOV and WP:V and as such certainly should not be in the lead of that article. BMK's edit summary states that the revert is part of an RfC but I disagree. The RfC specifically states that the material is in the section "2020 Presidential election" not in the lead which is what I removed. The material for inclusion subject to the RfC is as follows:

In May 2019, Kirk created a new 501(c)(4) organization, a political action committee intended to target Democrats, called Turning Point Action, which purchased the assets of Students for Trump. Students for Trump had been founded in 2015 at Campbell University in Buies Creek, North Carolina by John Lambert and Ryan Fournier. Lambert left the organization some time after Trump's election, and in August 2019 he pled guilty to creating a fake law firm and posing as an experienced lawyer. The scam netted him over $46,000, which he will forfeit. Lambert also faces prison time. After Lambert's arrest in April, Students for Trump distanced themselves from him.

I will not include the material I removed from the lead because it contains allegations of racist activity which I consider an exceptional claim per WP:REDFLAG and a violation of WP:V and WP:BLPGROUP. I also believe there are blatant NPOV issue in the presentation of that material. The edtor responsible for restoring that violative content should be dealt with in an appropriate manner as he has been problematically reverting material that he should not have been reverting. I wasn't sure if I should bring this issue here, or to AE. I look forward to your comments. _Talk 📧 16:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme fails to note that his deletion came in the middle of an open RfC in which the material in question was being discussed. He denies this, but, in point of fact, his edit is simply another way of removing material in order to help to whitewash the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

As for the open RfC, see BMK's edit summary in this diff which states: (Undid revision 963452242 by Atsme (talk) Restore collapse of side discussion not pertinent to the RfC) and the comment in the collapsed discussion which states Ctop. How much more evidence of BMK's misrepresentation of my action is needed? _Talk 📧 23:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Atsme is a woman. But yes, this looks like WP:FORUMSHOPping. Guy (help!) 17:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme: My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Forum shopping, Guy? This is the only forum I posted in. What other forums are you referring to? _Talk 📧 17:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I meant canvassing. If you want to attract people to an RfC you must use a neutral statement. You know this. Guy (help!) 17:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong on that one, too, Guy I am not canvassing. I came to this BLP forum as I am obligated to do because I strongly believe there is a blatant violation of BLPGROUP and you need to be very careful of what you're saying here because you are making false accusations against me and so is BMK. Back-up your allegations and stop the aspersions. _Talk 📧 17:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I can see why you would say this was canvasing since the comment mentioned the RfC. However, I think it was mentioned to illustrate that the disputed edit from earlier today was not related to the RfC material. I agree that they aren't related. I'm not sure about the policy related justification for the removal from the lead. I'm not saying it's right or wrong only that I don't understand the thinking at this point in time. Springee (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I can see the concern regarding is this a neutral heads up regarding the RfC. However, I don't think this was meant to be a RfC notification. The RfC enters into this because BMK claimed the material removed earlier today was the subject of the RfC. It is not. This edit ] is not related to the RfC. The RfC involves a subtopic. The material removed from the lead is not related to or supported by the subject of the RfC. BMK really needs to tone down the incivility. Springee (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

BLP concerns apply with regards to the RFC, not just because of Kirk but because of the SYNTHING of Lambert into the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It's absurd to call it SYNTH, although I've agreed to partial removal because the events described occurred before TP Action's purchase of Students for Trump. The RfC was triggered by the attempt to claim that Turning Point USA's political action committee was not connected to TPUSA, even though it was created by Charlie Kirk and controlled by him, and takes action based on TPUSA's ideology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• I note the rfc is reaching a compromise solution. As for the revert here, Atsme removed too much. Most of it is appropriate sourced material to show the nature of the organization. However, the sentence "n December 2017, former employees " about the charge of being racist should be removed from the lede, (but of course not not the article,, because it's a single specific charge by a single group; it is overemphasis in the lede . DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with DGG on removal from lede, but not from article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree with DGG. In BMK's comment above he unequivocally states ...even though it was created by Charlie Kirk and controlled by him which makes the material noncompliant with WP:BLPGROUP and WP:REDFLAG. It is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary RS so the ONUS is on the editor who wants to restore the material. I actually did a bit of research for RS to cite to that extraordinary claim, and did not find any. _Talk 📧 22:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Charlie Kirk founded Turning Point USA - a fact, not controversial.

Charlie Kirk is the head of TPUSA - a fact, not controversial - 2017 IRS Form 990,

Charlie Kirk founded Talking Point Action as TYPUSA's political action committee - a fact, not controversial - CNBC article,

Charlie Kirk is the head of Turning Point Action - a fact, not controversial - 2017 IRS Form 990O.

QED. Nothing extraordinary here, except for the attempt to ignore plain facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Atsme's analysis of this section and agree it needs to be removed in whole as it is a blatant violation of WP:BLP:GROUP, WP:NPOV and WP:V, as well as WP:REDFLAG. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Why is there both a discussion here and an RfC on the page? Seems redundant. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  Please read my opening statement which explains that my removal of noncompliant material from the lead is not relevant to the RfC. _Talk 📧 11:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Some of the material removed is completely unambiguously not a BLP violation. The rest is just a summary of what's already in the article, with the only real BLP objection potentially the "illegal" business... but it seems silly that people are edit warring and trying to claim BLP (and now fully protecting it) with that full block gone, including material clearly not a BLP violation, and leaving available the material it summarizes. Here's the good plan: Close this thread, unprotect the page, restore the material, revise so as to summarize without BLP-objectionable content, and then finish the RfC (which has implications for, but is not about this matter). — Rhododendrites \\ 04:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

As already mentioned, any admin should feel free to reverse my protection and/or text removal. I do not object and do not need to be consulted further in any way whatsoever. El_C 04:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• BMK's list of uncontroversial facts above states clearly why the racist allegation is a violation of BLPGROUP - it relates directly to founder Charlie Kirk. What I removed from the lead included 3 sentences as follows;

1. the racist allegation and "potentially illegal involvement" statement was cited to The New Yorker. Neither allegation is proven/verifiably accurate, nor do they belong in the lead or body of the article. If anything, it could be used as an example of false allegations and biased spin by The New Yorker.
2. the second sentence was another LABEL by the Anti-Defamation League, a biased advocacy. Any editor who needs verification of their bias can simply go to their website and search "Joe Biden". I'm happy to provide 2 examples: this article and this one. Search Turning Point USA and you will see the stark contrast and obvious bias in how the articles are presented by ADL.
3. the third sentence was passing mention of an unknown author's opinion of TPUSA, saying that it is "shunned or at least ignored by more established conservative groups in Washington, but embraced by many Trump supporters". A comment that cannot be attributed to an author, much less verified as anything beyond a biased opinion is UNDUE and does not belong in the lead. _Talk 📧 11:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• There is no logical connection between my proof that Charlie Kirk runs both TPUSA and its political action committee TPA, and Atsme's restatement of their complaint. Certainly it does not support it in any way, and baldly stating that it does support it doesn't change that. It's simply a non sequitor, and can safely be ignored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• It is absolute logic, and should not be ignored. Charlie Kirk (activist) is referred to as "Leader" in the TPUSA infobox. Allegations by former employees that the organization is "engaging in racist practices" is not only a false reflection directly on Charlie Kirk but may be considered libelous - see the BLP TP template: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. I consider these allegations to be poorly sourced per WP:REDFLAG which requires multiple high quality sources. Read my edit summary as it clearly demonstrates why the sentences were challenged and removed from the lead. _Talk 📧 15:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

BeyondMyKen Charlie Kirk is synonymous with TurningPointUSA, Misplaced Pages has put lots of precautions (such as WP:REDFLAG ) in place so that irresponsible edits (like the material in dispute) don't confuse a reader into wrongly thinking Charlie Kirk and/or TPUSA involve themselves in racist activities (as opposed to a select few isolated incidents which I do believe Charlie Kirk publicly condemns racism). Its very, very misleading and with the traffic that Misplaced Pages gets, especially a lead paragraph, it could result in extreme irreversible damage. EliteArcher88 (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

EliteArcher88, Charlie Kirk carefully positions TPUSA in the "mainstream" of the radical right fringe. The close afficinty for the Trump administration, "All Live Matter" propaganda etc., positions them solidly in that part of the right which is cool with racism, not cool wioth anything done about it, but doesn't usually use the n-word when anyone is likely to be listening. That's what the sources show. It's also what their social media feed shows. They say they are not racist, but the racists sure as hell think they are. Guy (help!) 13:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, what I see as the problem - your use of broad terminology and WP:LABEL. Kirk may be radical right in your perception of the term but he is conservative in his basic beliefs which is nowhere near radical right in the beliefs of others. His POV is different from the left - each side believes what they believe and labeling people because of their beliefs when the label doesn't fit is noncompliant with NPOV and other core content policies. Labeling white people as racists has been so overused by the left that it has lessened the significance of real concerns about racism, and it does far more harm than good as evidenced in quite a few articles, including The Atlantic, Chicago Tribune, The race card slowly loses its sting through overuse as we head toward 2020, and I'll use an opinion piece in the WSJ because the author is a member of the WSJ editorial board, and accusations of racism are not always based on facts but opinions. _Talk 📧 15:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I am delighted that you are able to read Charlie Kirk's innermost thoughts. Me, I am forced to look at the external evidence, which shows them to be an astroturf group funded by billionaires who are known for trolling, mainly on social media.

All of which is fine and normal for 2020 (there is an endless list of billionaire-funded astroturf groups, after all), but right now Charlie Kirk is online claiming that lockdowns don't work, Democrats want to destroy the Lincoln Memorial, Bubba Wallace is a "fraud", that an exemption from a mask mandate for "People of color who have heightened concerns about racial profiling and harassment due to wearing face coverings in public" is racist, and a whole bunch of "Obamagate and other conspiracist claptrap, including that Roger Stone was "framed" and so on.

Literal quote from Kirk: Yesterday ALONE, 40 people were shot and 6 were killed in Democrat-run Chicago. This is on top of 100+ people shot and 12+ killed over the weekend. I wonder if Black Lives Matter will be rioting over all their deaths? Or does that not fit their narrative?

Exactly as I said: radical right and "all lives matter". Guy (help!) 16:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, your comment includes multiple unsourced criticisms and I'm not getting your point. How does any of it relate to the BLP vio under discussion? The NYTimes refers to Kirk as a "conservative activist", and/or young right-wing provocateur, and that is a long way from "radical right", racist or white supremacist. He tours with Candace Owens. Re: the lockdown, are you talking about Kirk's appearance on Fox back in March when he suggested reopening states with lower infection rates while leaving more heavily infected areas in quarantine? Again, not relative to this discussion. Re: the Lincoln Memorial, The Hill: In Washington, D.C., fires were set near the White House, and historic landmarks, including the Lincoln Memorial, became the targets of vandalism over the weekend. WSJ: Congressional Democrats in recent weeks have backed removing statues of people who are tied to the Confederacy or who are remembered for promoting white supremacy, especially in the U.S. Capitol building. And? Re: the BLM and black on black criticisms, see The Atlantic article, and USA Today. WP is not a SOAPBOX or a place to RGW. This discussion is about the removal of violative content per BLP. _Talk 📧 23:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, they are not unsourced, they are taken directly from the first page of Kirk's Twitter feed as of the time of writing. Denial is not just a river in Egypt, you know.

Kirk is 100% Trump Train "all lives matter" radical right. It is impossible to read his and TPUSA's social media feeds without concluding this. Guy (help!) 06:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, with all due respect, sticking a false label on the young man doesn't make it so. It stirs memories of what happened to Nick Sandermann. I'll stick with WP:PAG and verifiable descriptions used by the NYTimes, USA Today, and Chicago Tribune lest I fall prey to false accusations of political SOAPBOX, ADVOCACY or some other inane political agenda. _Talk 📧 12:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I get it: you want to think the best of him despite the undeniable evidence from his own social media feeds. But it won't wash.

https://twitter.com/charliekirk11

"Why are Republicans pushing a police reform bill, surrendering to the left, and not fighting to defend our country from terrorists? Or our history? Why is the Republican Party okay with the burning of our country?"

"Fact: You're more likely to be targeted for a hate crime for wearing a MAGA hat as a regular American than you are as a multimillionaire, black celebrity like Bubba Wallace or Jussie Smollett."

"The FBI acted quicker to solve the Bubba Wallace noose hoax than they did to hold the Obama Administration accountable for spying on President Trump What a disgrace."

You can ignore this as hard as you like, it's not going to stop being true. Guy (help!) 13:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I think you are illustrating one of the problems with many of your comments on this and other subjects. You have a very strong POV and are often very certain that the way you read something is the only correct way to read it. (Disclaimer: I am someone not in your head telling you how your comments come across to me. That doesn't mean your intent is what I perceive) First, we have to remember that hyperbole is, unfortunately, an often used rhetorical tool. Hence those who were for Obamacare would claim those who are against don't want what Obamacare claimed to deliver; affordable healthcare. Those who oppose some education bill don't want good education. Those who are against an equal pay law are against the idea of equal pay. So going down the list, the first one is the one I would find hardest to defend. There certainly are police reforms that we needed and if the GOP can use this an excuse to get some of them done I'm for it. However, we also see stories about municipalities deciding not to prosecute those who were actually doing harm (rioting/looting vs civil protest). I can understand why someone might ask, why shouldn't those who broke into a store be prosecuted? However, absent more context I can't really be sure what Kirk was talking about. What is the problem with the second one? I don't actually know what the statistics are but I think the comment focuses on how intolerant some people on the left have been towards people who have supported Trump/wear MAGA hats. There definitely is a level of irrationality towards anything Trump (and I think the guy is pond scum). So I guess its factually questionable to say a wealthy black person is less likely to be assaulted than a person in a MAGA hat, I'm not sure how this is a alt-right claim? I think it condemns those on the left who presume to claim that anyone wearing a MAGA hat is clearly racist etc. Perhaps they are an Ohio factory worker or West Virgina coal miner who is out of work and ignored by the Democrats. As for the Wallace case again I'm seeing hyperbole but not racism on Kirk's part. The Micheal Flynn case has made it very clear that there has been problems with the FBI targeting people associated with Trump for political reasons. That doesn't mean the FBI did anything wrong with respect to the Obama-Trump period but his concerns are clearly not without any merit given how the FBI abused the system to go after Flynn. Ultimately, you posted those quotes to prove Kirk was racist etc but they don't prove any such thing. His arguments are strong with rhetoric and hyperbole. You might be right and he might be an alt-right racist and these things might something an alt-right racist would say. However, they also might just be something a frustrated, non-racist would say. I would hope we all could agree that it's bad any time the FBI conducts an investigation for partisan, political reasons and that a person's political opinions or that they helped "the other side of the isle should never make a difference in how they are treated by the law. None of what I've said proves Kirk isn't racist or isn't supporting things that society should condemn, only that what you have posted thus far doesn't support the conclusion that he does. Again, I respect your thoughts but I think you are too narrow in your thinking here. It's kind of like admitting the French are right about... well anything ( :D insert British vs French humor here). Springee (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Its like arguing with a Wookie...all you get is the same growls and roars yet its mostly unintelligible.--MONGO (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Its an encyclopedia , and it should be treated as such, not a place where editors interpretations of racism get to override protocol and Misplaced Pages BLP guidelines, if there were exceptions to the rule it wouldn't really be an encyclopedia would it, would be more of a personal blog which frankly is what this thread and the TPUSA article reminds me of. Sure we can debate Charlie Kirk's inner thoughts, but its not who we are underneath but what we do that defines us. The fact is Charlie Kirk publicly repudiates and rejects white supremacy, he doesn't tolerate it in his organization, at the moment there are 4 isolated incidents (out of an organization with hundred of thousands of student members over a an eight year span) whom he quickly got rid of. Four isolated incidents doesn't merit a label in the lede for racism. Turning Point hosts a Black leadership summit, the nations largest young latino leadership summit for the past five years. TPUSA has a very diverse panel, Candace Owens was their communications director, David J Harris jr, Joel Patrick, Rob Smith, Anna Paulina were/still are TPUSA influencers/ambassadors. The racist argument gets really thin really fast. Even if you don't like the guy, if you disagree with his views, slandering him as a racist is really rough and it really diminishes the weight of that word sadly. Talk about it lower in the article, and give it due weight and be very careful with how you word it. EliteArcher88 (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Springee, I have a POV, and I am aware of it. |The awareness is not evident in some others here. The contention that Kirk is an "all lives matter" troll is trivially proved by reference to his Twitter feed.

I am not calling him racist. I am calling him Trump-train "all lives matter" radical right. That doesn't mean racist. It does mean sufficiently unconcerned about racism to make comments like "all lives matter" when it's the Black people who are being killed by police.

Trump is not racist either, in my view. He is just fine with racism when it's to his benefit - whether that is excluding black tenants so white people will pay higher rent, or pursuing a white nationalist immigration policy. I think he is genuinely puzzled that comments like "shithole countries" attract opprobrium. America is on fire, and Trump decides that it would be a great idea to threaten long jail sentences for pulling down statues of traitors erected in the 20th Century by racists pushing back at black equality. I don't think he's a racist, but the racists certainly do.

I do think that Charlie Kirk, friend of the Trump family and vociferous Trump booster, is smarter and has a much wider exposure to differing views. It is vastly harder for him to plausibly argue that he genuinely thinks "all lives matter" is an appropriate response to "black lives matter". But the most likely explanation is not actual racism on his part, but that racism is less important to him than tribal point-scoring.

To pretend that Charlie Kirk is anything other than completely cool with racism from his "tribe", based on his recent tweets, is wilful denialism.

• "If Black Lives mattered to Planned Parenthood, why would they position 70% of their abortion clinics in predominantly African-American communities?"
• "If black lives mattered to Black Lives Matter, they would be protesting outside of Planned Parenthood not trying to tear down statues of Abraham Lincoln"
• "Planned Parenthood is more systemically racist than any other "institution" in America"
• "The European Union is putting travel restrictions on all Americans. Will the media call the EU racist for protecting their continent?"
• this arm-waving denial of systemic racism.

Again,. I am not calling him racist. I am saying that if you want to remove any mention of his involvement in racially charged statements, you have a hill to climb on NPOV grounds. Guy (help!) 23:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I hope I am correct in posting here and in the ongoing RFC, sorry for redundancies but want to remain consistent across forums, I do think Atsme was correct in removing the content she did, trying to correlate Racism with a person and/or company is extremely damaging and in this case I believe it to be untrue, even speculating at racism on a Misplaced Pages article is wrong, especially in the lede.Eruditess (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I feel it is wrong and in error that the editor who started this section deleted the content that Beyond My Ken put in. I also think it is wrong for the editor who started this section to issue what appears to be a veiled threat to Beyond My Ken in the last paragraph of this diff
  

I feel WP articles that include the reliable source's reporting on racism within TPUSA does not violate any WP guidelines. It does not violate WP:BLPGROUP, WP:REDFLAG, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, or any other WP guideline that I can find. TPUSA is large, national organization and I have found no reliable source to support the (above) claim, "Charlie Kirk is synonymous with Turning Point USA" so WP:BLP does not apply and neither does WP:BLPGROUP. Also, from my take, including the racism within TPUSA does not violate WP:REDFLAG, NPOV, or WP:V

Below is a short list of sources reporting on the racism within TPUSA:

1. (Newsweek) Trump Praises Conservative Group After Former Member's 'I Hate Black People' Text Surfaces: "i hate black people. Like fuck them all . . . I hate blacks. End of story," Crystal Clanton wrote according to the magazine's report Thursday. " \"Other employees also reportedly stated they felt some racial tension within the organization."
2. (Politico) There is undeniably a racial component to the message often delivered by Turning Point USA .  In a December 22, 2017, story in the New Yorker. In that article, Jane Mayer uncovered two troubling things about the organization. The first was that its No. 2 executive had allegedly once sent a text message stating, “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all … I hate blacks. End of story.” The executive, Crystal Clanton, was fired 72 hours after the New Yorker told Kirk about the text message. The issue is tied to Turning Point USA’s founding. Kirk told me—and has said in public several times—that in high school he received a congressional appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, but lost that slot to a different candidate—a person he told me was of “a different ethnicity and gender.”
3. (Azcentral) Gov. Doug Ducey was not aware that conservative group Turning Point USA had faced repeated claims of racism and anti-Semitism when he appeared at its Arizona facility opening earlier this month, he told reporters Thursday ... charges of racism and other forms of bigotry have plagued the group for years, making headlines as the organization's influence has spread.
4. (Conservatives at Washington Examiner report on TPUSA racism) "To make matters worse, TPUSA has a troubling track record with racism.   The group claimed to have taken “decisive action” in removing the employee within 72 hours. But the racism within the organization didn’t stop there. Ironically, Kirk replaced his national field director with someone who had quite a bit of baggage of her own. In since-deleted tweets, the newly hired employee repeatedly used the N-word, bragged that “I love making racist jokes”, and stated that if you are “any other race than white”, she promises to “make racist jokes towards you.” Turning Point’s bad faith engagement goes beyond racial lines."
5. (Even Fox News reports on TPUSA racism): "A prominent Christian pastor and author tearfully apologized this week for liking posts on social media by Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk which were considered racially insensitive."
6. (NYTimes) Mr. Kashuv revealed on Twitter that the university this month rescinded its admission offer over a trail of derogatory and racist screeds.  Kyle Kashucv was high school outreach director for Turning Point USA, a conservative group with ties to the Trump family.   
7. (Buzzfeed) Kyle Kashuv stepped down from his role with right-wing group Turning Point USA in May, just before the racist screenshots went public.  
8. (USA Today) A viral video clip showing a member of the University of Nevada Las Vegas’s Turning Point USA chapter shouting “white power” and using a white supremacist hand sign has led the conservative group to ban him.
9. (Huffington Post) Turning Point USA Keeps Accidentally Hiring Racists. “I love making racist jokes,” tweeted the woman who replaced the person who wrote, “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE.”
10. (Daily Beast) Conservative Campus Org Turning Point USA ‘Rife’ With Racism, Possibly Illegal Campaign Activity

There are many more reliable sources that report on the racism within Turning Point USA so including the reliable source's reports of racism within TPUSA does not violate any WP guidelines. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, the sources above reinforce my opinion that while Kirk and TPUSA are not themselves actively racist, racists think they are, and feel at home within the group. "All lives matter" BS is not racist, it's anti-anti-racist. Racist enablement, not active racism. To say that TPUSA has a problem with racism is legitimate, to say it is racist is not, based on the sources here. It's like saying the UK's Labour Party has a problem with antisemitism, even though the party itself repudiates antisemitism and most members are absolutely not antisemitic. Enough sources mention it that exclusion would be basically whitewashing.

Spokesman Rob Smith here firmly establishes TPUSA as part of the "all lives matter" radical right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0w9H7jJp7I. Charlie Kirk denies that systemic racism is a thing, or that Black people are victims of a history of racism around housing and the like, a historical fact which is essentially unchallenged in the academic literature.

"Most recently, Kirk has been one of the more visible proponents of the belief that, while racism is evil, claims of systemic racism are not true or are exaggerated. In this, Kirk represents a significant number of Americans, many of whom identify as evangelical." . Yeah, we know. The Southern Baptist Convention went to bat in favour of slavery and segregation.

Denial of institutional racism is not racism, it's white privilege. The two are different. Guy (help!) 10:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Guy, but you're mistaken. I brought concerns to this noticeboard because of the blatant BLP violations, which I explained in more detail in this TP discussion. I also provided an analysis of the sources, the misrepresentations, echo chamber, etc. I summarized the most disconcerting aspects of the material as follows:

I have demonstrated serious policy violations per the above - Kashuv was only 16 yo at the time of his insensitive comments, and in Clanton's case, it happened 4 years before she joined TPUSA. WP:REDFLAG clearly states: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Some of the sources are misrepresented, others contain sensationalized clickbait opinion, most represent passing mention of TPUSA and are not the crux of the article. I cannot impress upon editors enough that our concerns here should be focused on the unambiguous BLP violations and the ages of the named teenagers per WP:NPF and WP:BLP1E. I fully support BLP policy which states: Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Anyone can claim something is "racially insensitive" - it is an opinion - and anyone can say whatever they please in the US per 1st Amendment. As WP editors, we do not repeat opinions and unverifiable allegations in WikiVoice which is why I have been removing material from the lead. BLP requires strict adherence to BLP & NPOV. Another consideration is WP:10YT which carries a lot of weight. The fact that the accused offenders have either quickly left TPUSA on their own or were removed is important, not the attempts to lay guilt on TPUSA by association using SYNTH or weak arguments that are based on media echoing & sensationalism of the same two events, opinions by non-notable people or biased organizations and advocacies. Atsme Talk 📧 11:46 am, Today (UTC−4) (reply)

To - There is no "blatant BLP violation." In fact, there appears to be no BLP violation.

The topic of this section is whether you were justified in deleting the edit (in green) at the top of this section.  I feel that the the ONUS to restore the edit is satisfied based off of comments in this section & from the reading of the WP guidelines. As for your deletion, on the one hand, you say you deleted edit due REDFLAG; then when you are presented with several, verifiable high-quality RS who report the same thing - which proves there is no REDFLAG - you then complain (in this diff ) that the RS can't be used because the multiple RS presented are all reporting the same things - and even though that makes no sense - in the same diff, you also claim the RS provided to you can't be used because they do not report on what you deleted -- but they actually do report on what you deleted -- and several RS report that more than just two events of racism were being complained about.

In your deleted edit (here you said you deleted due to NPOV, REDFLAG, and BLPGROUP. Now, after being given information that do not support any of those violations, you're now including: POV, BLP, NPF, BLP1E, SYNTH, V, 10YT, UNDUE, misrepresenting RS, guilt by association, cherrypicking, echo chamber, spin, and clickbait. Wow! Those allegations sure are way, way more than what you first claimed.

I have no doubt that you included those additional accusations in good faith. I also feel that as WP editors, we need to be very thoughtful, mindful, and careful when alleging a multitude of violations of guidelines in order to avoid giving any appearance of Gaming the system

Your claims of violation do not appear to be accurate; there appear to be no policy violations that I can see. And there is no guilt by association, no spin, no echo chamber, and no clickbait.

• There appears to be no violation of REDFLAG & no UNDUE: the TPUSA employees complaining of racism within TPUSA by several different TPUSA officials is well-sourced and covered by multiple high-quality RS as was the allegation of "possible illegal campaign activity" by TPUSA employees saying they were made to work with Ginni Thomas on Republican campaigns in the 2016 election.  I have not found any RS support the claim that the New Yorker article is "spin." I have not found any RS to support the claim that the well-sourced RS articles about TPUSA are "clickbait." Also, I cannot find any WP guideline that says WP editors are to dismiss reports from high-quality RS just because one or two claim the RS headlines are "clickbait"
  
• There appears to be  no violation of BLPGroup: the organization, TPUSA, is a large national organization whose so large, that their convention speakers include: the US President,   members of the US Senate, members of the US House, and whose Board members include the wife of a US Supreme Court Justice, Ginni Thomas. That sure is a pretty dang large national organization.  From what I see, BLPGROUP does not appear to support the claim that 'if Person A founds or *co-founds & controls the organization; then reporting on the organization's employees complaining in racism & possible illegal campaign activity violates BLP.'  In fact, the way I read BLPGROUP, just the opposite is true. 
• There appears to be no violation of BLP: The TPUSA employees complaining of racism within TPUSA and being forced to work on Republican campaigns relate directly to the organization TPUSA (not to Charlie Kirk). Therefore, no BLP violation.  The TPUSA employees complaining of racism within TPUSA have been verified by well-sourced and multiple RS and by several different TPUSA officials.  I found no RS to support the claim "Charlie Kirk is synonymous with TPUSA" so no BLP violation. (And it's a good thing for TPUSA that TPUSA is not synonymous with Charlie Kirk; otherwise, TPUSA would have absolutely violated federal campaign laws when Kirk joined the 2016 Trump campaign & with all of Kirk's other personal activity in Republican campaigns.) The "racially insensitive" writings by TPUSA Director Kyle Kashuv and the racist texts from the then-second-highest TPUSA Official Crystal Clanton do not appear to be an "opinion" - Kashuv, admitted he engaged in racist activities - so it is a fact he admitted to doing and a fact that caused Harvard to reject his application.  So, no BLP violation  Also, I found no WP guideline that says WP editors are to dismiss allegations of racism with an organization (TPUSA) if the TPUSA official, sent racist texts to their fellow TPUSA coworkers - nor if - the old, or young adults TPUSA Directors admit that they did engage in racist activities in their teens, so no BLP violation & no "guilt by association" either."
  
• There appears to be no violation SYNTH: The TPUSA employees complained about racism within TPUSA & multiple RS report on that - and that is not SYNTH.
• There appears to be no violation WP:NPF and WP:BLP1E: Several high-quality RS report that the second-highest official at TPUSA, Crystal Clanton, sent racist text messages to another TPUSA employee (John Ryan O'Rourke); and several RS report that TPUSA's Director of High School Outreach, Kyle Kashuv, admitted he engaged in racist activities.  Both of which are notable material that is relevant to high-quality RS reporting that 'TPUSA employees complain about racism within TPUSA' - so no NPE violation, no BLP1E violation, no BLP violation, no SYNTH, & no REDFLAG.  Also, I cannot find any WP guideline that supports the claim that we have to dismiss the racist activities of TPUSA officials based on age.
  
• There appears to be no violation of NPOV, and no violation of WP:V - The edit you deleted is neutral, and does not seem to incorporate any personal prejudice from the editor who included it.  
  
• There appears to be no violation of 10YT: the TPUSA employees complaining of racism within TPUSA by several different TPUSA officials & employees allegation of "possible illegal campaign activity" by complaining they were made to work with Ginni Thomas on Republican campaigns is noteworthy and relevant about TPUSA - and any other organization for that matter - and will be in 10 years. Hopefully, 10 years from now, TPUSA will no longer have employees making those complaints, but those complaints about TPUSA are relevant today & will be in 10 years - just like they would be in 10 years for any organization.
  

Sorry this comment is so long, but you added way, way more questionable claims of violating policy guidelines than what you originally started off with that needed to be responded to. I feel the ONUS to restore the deleted edit has been satisfied. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

BRM, many of us in the WP community who have been around 10+ years or so truly enjoy new, enthusiastic editors like yourself who are WP:BOLD, and not at all hesitant about jumping right in and joining the discussions in some of our most controversial articles. But, there comes a time when it gets to be too much. For example, adding walls of text that range anywhere from 7,500 to 11,000+ characters like this comment and this one. Apologies, but that is tl;dr territory. I'm truly happy that you feel confident about your knowledge of WP:PAG, especially after having racked up 51 edits in namespace since you first registered in April. It took me much, MUCH longer...and I did make newbie mistakes...and I'm still learning. You must be an extremely fast learner, or perhaps you've edited WP as an IP in years prior. Regardless, we obviously have different perspectives regarding what constitutes a WP:BLP violation, so let's do this - you and I back away and allow others a chance to participate and share their views. Thanks in advance!! _Talk 📧 23:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

To - I'm sure you will agree that sometimes it takes a "wall of text" to combat misleading, erroneous information, and sometimes it takes a "wall of text" when responding to an editor's original 3 allegations of policy violations and then having to respond to that same editor's additional 14 allegations (totaling 17) after their first 3 allegations seem to get discredited. And, you are mistaken, I am not a BOLD editor. In fact, I am a very cautious editor who feels that all editors, no mater how many years they've been here, should be very thoughtful, mindful, and careful - when, let's just say, piling on additional allegation after allegation, etc., - in order to avoid giving any appearance of Gaming the system - even though/if/when the additional allegations are added in good faith.

To answer your first questions: No, I have never edited on WP prior to April 2020 - so I guess, according to you, that makes me a "fast learner" - oh & please feel free to check my IP if you need confirmation. To your second question, respectfully: No, I will not promise to back away - and I doubt you will either. Like you, I will continue to help improve this article. When needed, I will also continue to use WP guidelines to express my view that Beyond My Ken (who has 11 years editing experience) was correct to revert your edit; there are no BLP violations; and no violations to other 16 allegations you added. Finally, when needed, I will continue to express my view that based on WP guidelines, the ONUS to restore the deleted text has been satisfied. BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

BMK sez: Actually, 15 years . Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S. - You say you didn't read my comment due to tl;dr and that is a shame. If you had taken the time to read, instead of replying without knowing, maybe you would have learned a few things, like why I, and others, feel you are wrong about BLP and the other 16 allegations you tossed out. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Tyrell Robinson

• Tyrell Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

According to sources he "admitted engaging in sexual activity with a child, making an indecent image of a child and distributing an indecent image of a child". Are the categories regarding his 'conviction' therefore strictly accurate? Also requesting input from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Law. GiantSnowman 15:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

According to the source that affirms he admitted - in a court setting - to these, he will be sentenced on these at at a later date, so that's basically a conviction for all purposes. Seems appropriate here. --Masem (t) 16:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

If he plead guilty, that's a conviction. Sentencing can be done later. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Now that they're resolved, I'm hoping to distill the these legal zig-zags, but another editor opposes more concise coverage. Please weigh in: Talk:Tyrell Robinson § Career v. Crime Mcfnord (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Dino Costa

Can someone please cast their eye over the Dino Costa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. Bit of a new one for me having being an editor for fifteen years but I have somehow gotten myself as an 'involved party' by trying to explain on Costa Dino's talk page that he shouldn't edit war if he takes issue with the material within the article itself after he emailed me. He's taken an issue with the claim of plagiarism (which is sourced). Despite not heeding my advice IPs started edit warring today and I semi-protected the page. Just received an email from Costa to his lawyer stating I'm authorizing you to take whatever action against this individual "GLEN", and the Misplaced Pages organization, for slander and defamation of character. *sigh*. I'll alert WP to the legal threat but in the meantime would appreciate some uninvolved eyeballs on the article. Thanks. Glen 09:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The person behind the biography is reported by all sources to be extremely combative, so the response you experienced is par for the course. He gets his fame from being angry and abrasive on the radio. I don't expect the subject of the biography will ever be happy with a neutral summary of the literature. Binksternet (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no comment on any of this but I would encourage a discussion of awfulannouncing.com at RSN given it's a fanblog. It does not strike me as a particularly reliable source wrt WP:BLP. Praxidicae (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, Binksternet noted. I'll remove the plagiarism assertion while under dispute until clarity around the RS can be determined. Interestingly that site is sourced 11 times on the ESPN+ article though obviously not BLP. I'm stepping away from this now as my inbox is full of increasingly more threatening emails and whilst I'm not in the slightest but concerned I want Costa Dino to start communicating onwiki instead of emailing a barrage of threats to an editor. I have no issues anyone reverting my edit on the page - especially if a better source can be found. Cheers. Glen 20:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

AwfulAnnouncing.com is used as a reference in a bunch of sports radio articles: 2015 World Series, Criticism of ESPN, Get Up! (TV program), Tom Hart (sportscaster), Jon Sciambi, Mike Tirico, Major League Baseball on television in the 2010s, ESPN Megacast, Matt Yallof and many, many more. Dan Levy (journalist) is a staff writer at Awful Announcing. At Talk:2017 World Series/GA1, Muboshgu said it was a respected industry source. I don't see any discussions concluding that it was not neutral. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, thanks for the input. I'm not going to touch the article again for my own sanity (and the sanity of my inbox!) but will leave with you and other more competent editors than I in this arena to make the changes. I won't consider reversions to my edit edit warring goes without saying. Thanks again. Glen 20:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Captain Tom

Captain Tom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:86.21.249.196 persists in restoring uncited claims to Captain Tom, about the subject and other living people, despite warnings on the IPs talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Paul Anka

I have done a RFC for this but decided to post it here as well.

A consensus needs to be reached about how to state what Paul Anka has said in his autobiography about his origins. In page 11 of his book he states his parents were of Lebanese Christian DESCENT. He also said that with his own words in minute 3.25- 4:30 of his interview archived in NPR.org with link https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4793881?storyId=4793881&t=1593052812491 he was of Lebanese descent not of Syrian nor Syrian and Lebanese descent. When someone is of Lebanese descent it means his/her ancestors come from Lebanon.

Further in the same page 11 of his autobiography Anka says "in the small town in Syria called Bab Touma-where my ancestors came from" the told event with his grandfather and granduncle happened and "his grandparents immigrated to Canada" from there to escape revenge.

Since he first states his parents are of Lebanese descent the above statement has to mean that his grandparents moved from Lebanon to this small town in Syria, lived there and then immigrated to Canada after the incident. He stated his ancestors CAME from there (as CAME to Canada from there) not that they COME from there meaning originated from.

As per https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Using_sources Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. Also as per https://en.wikipedia.org/Quoting_out_of_context

User George Al-Shami is trying to merge his two statements in a way that implicates as if he is of Syrian descent and not of Lebanese descent as stated by Anka. He then goes on and adds less notable sources that say he is of Syrian descent to support his merge. Al-Shami also added his own original research by adding that the Bab Touma in Syria mentioned by Anka is the old district inside the city of Damascus when Paul Anka states that the Bab Touma where his ancestors came to Canada from is a SMALL TOWN in Syria

(For what is worth, since he stated his parents are of Lebanese descent, that small town of Bab Touma could even be Mar Touma in Ottoman Syria (modern-day Lebanon) but of course he didnt say Mar Touma so this is just my own original research to try to make sense of the two "seemingly contradictory" statements)

User George Al-Shami has previously quoted "exact" statements from sources in order to implicate Syrian descent of Queen Noor of Jordan's grandfather Elias Halaby when that Syrian descent has been put in question by experts such as Henry Louis Gates through his expertise and research. See https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Najeeb_Halaby#Najeeb_Halaby_Lebanese_Origins for this previous discussion.Chris O' Hare (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

User Chris O' Hare removes Syrian ancestry from that person's background, even when it is backed by the totality of credible sources; and when credible sources state the person has both ancestries.

1) On March 24 he adds a New York Times source to Najeeb Halaby's article that states he is Lebanese/Syrian and adds the nationalistic designation "Lebanese", which I don't object to, because it's referenced with a credible source, the NYT.

Here's the diff

2) Then on March 26, 2020 after seeing that no one objected to his addition of "Lebanese" and his NYT source which refers to Halaby as "Lebanese/Syrian", he removes the national designation "Syrian"; even though that's what his chosen source states; this will clearly show that the said editor is not making edits in good faith.

:Here's the diff 

3) He brings up the PBS Henry Gates source to dispel what the NYT source and his memoir stated, so I explained to Chris O' Hare that this is against Wiki policy to engage in WP:OR. Henry Gates's research found that Najeeb's great-grandfather was born in Damascus, but it does not specify which city the family hails from. Najeeb's memoir states that his grandfather was born in Zahle, however his daughter contradicts that in her memoir and says that he was not born in Zahle, he lived there for a number of years; however both sources state that their family hails from the city of Aleppo, Syria.

He introduces Najeeb's memoir source that states his grandfather was born in Zahle (a town in modern-day Lebanon) and he uses that to claim that Najeeb is only from "Lebanese" ancestry....now on the next line of the very source that Chris O' Hare is using it says that Najeeb's family is from Aleppo, (a large city in modern-day Syria). So, I returned the "Syrian" national designation and kept the "Lebanese" designation, because both memoir sources state Syrian and Lebanese ancestry and remarked to Chris O' Hare that it is very deceptive to use one line from his memoir and then ignore the other line just to back his POV and remove "Syrian" ancestry from the article, even though the memoir source that Chris O' Hare is using states that.

I am willing to collaborate and improve the sentence flow of the biography section and make it more harmonious to the reader, but, if not for an agenda, it is not clear why the said editor keeps removing "Syrian" from the different wiki articles on Syrian-Lebanese people. Conversely I am not the one who is removing "Lebanese" from the article; I always strived to keep both when the totality of sources maintain the ancestries from both countries. George Al-Shami (talk)

References

1. Fitzsimons, Tim (19 June 2020). "GOP senator quotes J.K. Rowling while blocking vote on LGBTQ bill". NBC News.
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Najeeb_Halaby&type=revision&diff=947160336&oldid=913707962. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Najeeb_Halaby&type=revision&diff=958972497&oldid=953674217. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Najeeb Halaby father of Queen Noor of Jordan

Ongoing discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Najeeb_Halaby#Najeeb_Halaby_Lebanese_Origins. User George Al-Shami is quoting sources with the intention to implicate Syrian descent of these two personalities ignoring that this has been later questioned by experts such as Henry Louis Gates. Input is needed on how to best state the ancestral origins of these two personalities

User George Al-Shami is also using sources in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context for the same purpose. See https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Paul_Anka#Paul_Anka's_Lebanese_descent_in_his_autobiography_and_own_words_in_radio_interview.Chris O' Hare (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

My goodness, what untruthful statements. Henry Louis Gates did not "question" his "Syrian" nor his "Lebanese" ancestry; I read the whole Gates source (21 pages in total), he concludes that his research couldn't find out where Elias' family (that's Lisa'a great-grandfather) is from.

Again, false allegation, Chris introduces Anka's memoir, which is a credible source and removes the "Syrian" designation (a pattern of his, if you check the recent history of his edits), because Anka states on line that he is from Lebanese ancestry; but then the said editor ignores what Anka says on the following line that his family hails from Damascus, Syria; to ignore what the source says in the following sentence is not "consistent" with the source.

Among the 3 sources I added, is the 1960 Life magazine source, where Life had interviewed and quoted from Anka's father, which said on page 68 of the magazine The only place Paul was not an immediate international success was with his Syrian father, Andrew Anka, whose parents came from Damascus. If one reads the entire article, one will find specific quotes from Paul and his father. George Al-Shami (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Martie Maguire

Martie Maguire "Early life... and younger half-brother, R&B singer Ian Daviz, born in 1996." I don't believe this is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:132F:2A3:50D9:4D08:1B69:72F8 (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced material from that paragraph. —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Bessel van der Kolk

I am not familiar with BLP policies, but a BLP is currently getting reverts/re-reverts over van der Kolk's dismissal from previous role, he then announced legal action and nothing since can be independently confirmed re: unfair dismissal case, claim of being on sabbatical at the time he was dismissed, and possible settlement, loyalty of previous staff to him, amount of out of court settlement back in 2018. Have posted my concerns on Talk:Bessel_van_der_Kolk but no response from those editors, one of who is anonymous. I am not sure what to revert / if to revert. But fairly sure potential defamation/libel is being posted/re-posted. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Amousey, there is some epic resume-padding going on at that article right now. There are also red flags as his work has been cited by "recovered memory" cranks. Guy (help!) 05:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Wendy Mesley‎‎

anon made a series of edits to the article that are unsubstantiated and possibly offensive . I believe that they constitute a BLP for the subject and could be offensive to others. They should be deleted or at least hidden to all but admin oversight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Pavan Sukhdev

The article for Pavan Sukhdev, the former head of the World Wildlife Fund reads like a resume and is in need of significant trimming, if anyone is interested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Corrections and edits to the entry in English for Edith Brown Weiss. The correct current title for Edith Brown Weiss is: University Professor Georgetown University. She is referred to in the Misplaced Pages article as Brown. The orrect name reference would be Brown Weiss. She was the Chairperson of the Inspection Panel at the World Bank, from 2003-2007, an appointment at the level of World Bank Vice President. She is also a Judge on the Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund and former President of the Administrative Tribunal of the InterAmerican Development Bank. She did NOT work for the United States National Academy of Sciences but served on the commissions and boards that are mentioned in the entry. Her most recent book publication is Establishing Norms in a Kaleidoscopic World (Brill/Nijhoff 2020), which is a pocketbook of The Hague Academy of International Law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edith Brown Weiss (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Eben Alexander (author)

This page currently refers to a source that has been discredited: Dittrich, Luke (August 2013). "The Prophet: An Investigation of Eben ALexander, Author of the Blockbuster "Proof of Heaven"". Esquire. All facets of this reference and its libelous and defamatory claims should be deleted from Misplaced Pages, in the interest of delivering a factual account. Note several of the other defamatory references are primarily derived from the Dittrich reference (ie Thompson, Dave. "Neurosurgeon reprimanded by state board", Jeff Bercovici. "Esquire Unearths 'Proof of Heaven' Author's Credibility Problems". Forbes. Retrieved July 13, 2013.), and should likewise be dismissed. Eben Alexander was never found guilty of malpractice, and was not terminated from any position "for cause", are the facts to be clarified by dismissing the Dittrich article.

The evidence discrediting Dittrich comes from this article: Esquire article on Eben Alexander distorts the facts. Available from:

The article is detailed and worth reading to clarify this claim. Here is their conclusion:

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

Dittrich was previously an award-winning journalist, yet this Esquire piece is one of the last major articles published by him. His curious disappearance is likely related to the publishing industry being aware of his inability to write factual articles without sensationalizing them through distortions of fact.

Another example of Dittrich's unreliability concerns the criticism he received after posting an excerpt of his book Patient HM in the New York Times. Over 200 scientists related to MIT sent the following article concerning his distortion of facts:

Please let me know if you have other questions about this request. Correcting this erroneous information on Misplaced Pages greatly improves the reliability of this article to reflect the facts of the case.

References

1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276276162_Esquire_article_on_Eben_Alexander_distorts_the_facts .
2. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mit-challenges-the-new-york-times-over-book-on-famous-brain-patient/

Ealexander3 (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC) EAlexander3

Why should we give any credence to Robert George Mays's article given that it is self-published per WP:RSSELF rather than through a peer-review journal or newspaper? He might be an expert in this area but we have no idea if his evaluation is WP:Fringe either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Is he actually an expert though? As far as I can tell, he only has a bachelor's in chemistry, is not affiliated with any research institution or school, and doesn't perform scientific research. His only publications (which are mostly with his wife, who has an AA) are through the JNDE, which is (pretty damningly) not indexed by PubMed. He sounds like a NDE enthusiast who writes pseudo-philosophical interpretations of other people's retrospective studies. JoelleJay (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts (talk) The "fact-checking" of Esquire for that article was shockingly absent, according to one of their main sources, Dr Laura Potter, who felt very threatened by the process, and claimed Dittrich completely distorted her statements. Robert Mays article, although long, is very well-written, with multiple points that can be independently verified (one of the most flagrant being Dittrich's total distortion of the Dalai Lama's validation of my story, very apparent to anyone who takes the time to view the video Dittrich himself references). That alone reveals Dittrich's biased distortions.

Much more powerful is the reality portrayed by the peer-reviewed case report on my medical records published in September 2018 (a far more reliable source than Dittrich, given the extensive medical peer-review process) that, to anyone with some medical knowledge, validates the case I made about the severity of my illness, surprise at any kind of mental function arising from a brain whose neocortex is so demonstrably damaged, and struggles to explain how such a patient could make a complete recovery over months . That is the truth Misplaced Pages readers should glean from my case, not Dittrich's clickbait version.

One can certainly argue with my interpretation of my case. The crime of Dittrich is trying to confuse everyone into thinking I made the story up, and am untrustworthy.

I hope you will at least include the medical case report on my page to offer some facts to your Misplaced Pages users.

Thank you for responding. (Apologies for my unfamiliarity with WP formatting)

Ealexander3 (talk)

I am trying to understand the exact information you want added to your biography. Is it that the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease reviewed your medical files and include some paraphrasing of "Although E. coli meningitis has a high rate of neurological complications and death, this patient recovered completely without any deficits, and recalled an elaborate near-death experience that occurred during his coma."? Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts (talk): Such paraphrasing would be useful. Might I also suggest some aspect of the following, all from same article:

"Patients with Gram-negative bacterial meningitis have a high rate of neurological complications, particularly impaired mental status, systemic complications such as septic shock, acute respiratory failure, acute renal injury, and death (Pomar et al., 2013). There is a reported mortality rate of 53%, with E. coli accounting for 38% of such deaths (Pomar et al., 2013). Most reported cases have residual neurological deficits; however, this patient attained full neurological recovery within 2 months, which is remarkable and rare. This recovery is particularly striking in light of the poor prognostic signs, including descent into coma within 3 hours of symptom onset, GCS score of 6 to 11 with absent oculocardiac reflex, and CSF glucose of 1."

"This is particularly relevant because of the specific and devastating effect of meningoencephalitis on the neocortex, compared with cardiac arrest and other more common conditions associated with near-death experiences. Of interest, other near-death experiences occurring under well-documented medical supervision have been associated with unexpected recovery from conditions thought to be irreversible (Alexander, 2017; Dossey, 2011), suggesting possible benefits from research into possible mechanisms by which near-death experiences might facilitate healing."

"It is noteworthy that the patient’s near-death experience can be placed between hospital days 1 and 5, when his GCS scores were lowest. This association of a mystical state of consciousness with diminished brain function is consistent with recent neuroimaging studies of psychedelic drug-induced states showing that brain connectivity in the default mode network is inhibited rather than excited by psilocybin (Carhart-Harris et al., 2012), ayahuasca (Palhano-Fontes et al., 2015), and LSD (Carhart-Harris et al., 2016)."

Direct response to Dittrich's claim that my coma was simply "drug-induced":

"It has been suggested by persons without access to this patient’s medical records that his coma might have been pharmacologically induced, with the implication that that might reduce the credibility of his near-death experience account (Mays, 2016). His medical records suggest that his coma was not drug-induced, as his brain function and level of consciousness were clearly impaired and on a downward trajectory before sedation and started to improve before sedation was discontinued."

"The question has also been raised as to whether this patient’s subjective report is more consistent with a dream, hallucination, or delirium, rather than a near-death experience (Mays, 2016). Phenomenologically, this patient’s description of his experience was consistent with other near-death experiences, with an impressively high NDE Scale score, and bears little resemblance to a dream or hallucination. Furthermore, the fact that he maintained elaborate memories of his experience after his illness resolved argues against it having been a dream, hallucination, or delirium, as memories of those experiences typically fade with time. Near-death experiences can be differentiated from dreams, hallucinations, and deliria by their phenomenology and sequelae (Greyson, 2014), and represent an entirely different phenomenon, the memory of which does not fade over time (Greyson, 2007; Moore and Greyson, 2017)"

The important aspect is that Misplaced Pages readers deserve to know there is more to this case than the simplistic dismissal of it as fabricated.

Thanks again for your attention and time in trying to set the record straight.

Ealexander3 (talk)

I've added in the counterpoint from the Journal to directly address the Esquire criticism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts (talk) Robert Mays' position on this is also published in 2 peer-reviewed medical articles. The first was a critique of John Fischer, a philosopher who received a $5 million grant from the Templeton Foundation and embarrassingly included the Dittrich article as a source in their conclusions:

"One can see the clever way Dittrich manipulated the meaning of the Dalai Lama’s statement to be the exact opposite of His Holiness’s actual meaning. Fischer and Mitchell-Yellin have a responsibility in repeating an erroneous report about someone’s character. Out of their own confirmation bias, they failed to conduct a thorough investigation of the accuracy of Dittrich’s article. They failed to consider that it does not even make sense that His Holiness would invite a person to speak at the convocation of one of his colleges, then turn around and proclaim the man unreliable and a liar. Instead, they characterized the Dalai Lama’s statement, as Dittrich erroneously reported it, to be “insightful advice from the Dalai Lama” (p. 176).

"By uncritically accepting Dittrich’s distorted account of Eben Alexander, Fischer and Mitchell-Yellin have amplified Dittrich’s errors by giving them the unqualified endorsement of a distinguished professor of philosophy, thereby further unjustly undermining Alexander’s good reputation."

In a second article, Mays states the following:

"In the following statement and accompanying footnote, Fischer and Mitchell-Yellin (2016) also employed another apophasis to infer—but not state directly—their apparent assessment of Eben Alexander’s character and the account of this NDE:

Our aim is not to call Alexander’s character into question and thereby discredit his account of his near-death experience. (Footnote) There do, however, appear to be legitimate questions about Alexander’s credibility due to the facts about his past, as uncovered in the reporting of Dittrich (2014). (Fischer & Mitchell-Yellin, 2016, p. 178)

Mitchell-Yellin (2017, p. 107) reiterated that his and Fischer’s (2016) aim was not to discredit Alexander. Given that we pointed out in our critique that they had relied on Dittrich’s (2014) distorted and misleading account of Alexander, we would have hoped for some expression of regret that, in effect, they had done just that."

References

1. https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2018/09/Greyson_-Alexander-JNMD-2018.pdf
2. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 36(2), Winter 2017 © 2017 IANDS 69 DOI: 10.17514/JNDS-2017-36-2-p69-99.
3. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 36(2), Winter 2017 © 2017 IANDS DOI: 10.17514/JNDS-2017-36-2-p110-120.
4. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 36(2), Winter 2017 © 2017 IANDS 69 DOI: 10.17514/JNDS-2017-36-2-p69-99.
5. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 36(2), Winter 2017 © 2017 IANDS DOI: 10.17514/JNDS-2017-36-2-p110-120.

Ealexander3 (talk)

Yeah, Robert Mays works for the International Association for Near-Death Studies (IANDS), which publishes the Journal of Near-Death Studies. That is hardly independent enough to qualify as a reliable source. A cursory review of the IANDS suggests fringe science all over that coincidentally features you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I have asked people from the Fringe Theories Noticeboard to participate in this discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

All facets of this reference and its libelous and defamatory claims should be deleted from Misplaced Pages, in the interest of delivering a factual account. This is not exactly a legal threat, but I think it important that the account posting here be made aware (again) of Misplaced Pages's policy on such matters (as linked). If this source really is libelous and defamatory as is claimed, there ought to be a ruling of such in a court of law. Otherwise, this is a matter of personal opinion that is best documented in venues other than Misplaced Pages. jps (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I also am concerned with the litany of accusations being leveled in this thread on living people with whom Alexander has ongoing feuds (Dittrich in particular). WP:BLP applies to all living people, not just article subjects, after all. jps (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller might have some insight. fiveby(zero) 15:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts (talk) I submit that the attention to fact verification is far stronger at the Journal of Near-Death Studies, as a peer-reviewed medical journal, compared with Esquire (especially under editor David Granger, who was openly pushing for sensationalist nonfiction articles before he was fired). The scientists of IANDS knew from the beginning that assiduous investigation of cases with rigorous scepticism, not sloppy uncritical assessment, would be crucial to any successful effort to understand these cases and share the science with the public - it is not "fringe science". Also, I would hope Misplaced Pages would see the factual nature of the medical case report on my case as being a much higher level of fact-checking than the Esquire article.

Ealexander3 (talk)

I'm afraid that Misplaced Pages is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia and does not entertain the fantasy that either IANDS or the remnants of Ian Stephenson's group at UVa represent something other than WP:FRINGE. If you are convinced otherwise, you should try to convince Nature or Science that parapsychologists have actually made these amazing breakthroughs rather than wasting your time on this crowdsourced, tertiary website that is stubbornly attached to rules like WP:NOR and WP:RS. jps (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's look at the facts. There is no question that there was a malpractice lawsuit. The source we use in the article (not the Esquire article) says :The case was dismissed by the plaintiff in 2009, according to court documents. The court file did not indicate whether the case had been settled; attorneys associated with the litigation either declined comment or did not return messages last week.

A transcript of a videotaped deposition on March 18, 2009, in that lawsuit shows Alexander admitting he operated at the wrong level of the patient’s spine; he said he didn’t initially divulge the mistake because the surgery had alleviated the symptoms. At one point, Alexander says, “I wanted to see if his symptoms came back quickly because people sometimes will have a placebo effect to surgery, and I wanted to see if this was truly a … durable (benefit of the surgery).” Alexander later states, “So in a sense, I had done the correct operation, even though it was not the intended operation.” "

So even though he admits to have made a mistake he still says he was correct "in a sense".

That was just one of two operations he made on the wrong section of a patient's spine. Worse, he altered the records for one of them. The consent order he signed "states that Alexander did not initially inform one of the patients that he operated at the wrong surgical site, and altered his original operative report to imply that the area he operated on was in fact the intended site." On the second operation he "did not follow up on a postoperative X-ray report that showed the error, the order states." Our article is wrong in using the source to say he lost privileges at the hospital, the source simply says they were told he no longer had privileges there - possibly they were up for renewal and the hospital didn't renew them. Hospitals are very careful about what they do. This is just an anecdote and not about this article, but I know of at least one case in the UK from my own research years ago where an anaethisist who bungled operations got passed around from hospital to hospital quitely. In any case I'd be surprised if he was ever found guilty of malpractice, the question for me is how many malpractice suits were filed against him and how were they disposed of. The Esquire article seems to have been used by other reliable sources, and if the author was lying Alexander should have been able to take legal recourse - if they are lies, they are major ones and a libel suit should have been easy and very costly for Esquire (who I presume would have been liable, although maybe both author and publisher would have been). Doug Weller talk 11:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

As for the criticism by scientists over the Patient HM book where he says that Corkin stated that she shredded her work, here is Dittrich's comment on it and a comment in a book by Steven Lubet says "The intentional destruction of such irreplaceable notes, covering over forty years of research and experiments, would have been professionally irresponsible, but it appears that Prof. Corkin had been trying only to discourage Dittrichs inquiry for reasons of her own." Even Alexander's source seems to accept that Corkin was reported correctly. Doug Weller talk 11:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Jack Posobiec

The majority of his page is pretty libelous an open to legal action. In fact most of it opinion rather than fact. A lot of it is heinously mistated.

Example 1 " and conspiracy theorist who is considered an Internet troll." Neither one of those things are fact, both are a matter of opinion and both libelous. Expressing one's belief on a public forum is not tantamount to being a theorist. It's a subjective label. I don't think we need to go over "internet troll".

Example 2. "Posobiec was one of the most prominent promoters on social media of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory," Prove it. While he may have expressed a belief in it, it doeesn't equate to "one of the most prominent promoters". THere's no source for that claim that proves it. It's again libelous as it's currently worded.

Example 3. The repetitive use of the word "Promoted". This is again subjective opinion and libelous. By defiition he isn't paying to promote these ideas, he isn't pushing them on people, he merely expresses his beliefs in a public forum. For what that's worth the activists hijacking his page are promoting libelous descriptions of him using Misplaced Pages as a willing platform.

Example 4. Listing any claim as "conspiracy theries, falsehoods and unsubstantiated claims" is in itself subjective and opinion base, and tantamount to libel per Example 5 as proof:

Example 5. Source number 24 uses a sourceless opinion article behind a paywall. and that's just the third claim under the heading "Conspiracy theories, falsehoods, and unsubstantiated claims" making it an unsubstantiated claim and falsehood in and of itself. The claim made in the opinion piece by the author is not sourced or proven. This is completely circular and not factual.

Example 6. Source 27 for the claims that Jack claimed Disney rewrote scenes involving Trump being called a racist is not backed with any provable source itself, It's a simple opinion piece that took the extra step of typing out it's claimed quote while direct sourcing other tweets in the same opinion piece. So rather than source that claim it's making itself, aka Jack's tweet or direct proof of the quote, it instead makes the claim without any proof of what exactly was said by Jack and offers no source to disprove it's claim or Jack's supposed claim even if he did make such a claim. The source is nothing more than a circular and libelous opinion piece.

Example 7. Source 27 is again an opinion piece with no direct quote, or evidence of the claim being made against Jack, nor is there any factual evidence that can disprove it. It doesn't even prove that Jack "promoted" a conspiracy so much as the opinion piece makes fun of him for having the belief. It doesn't prove the claim, disprove Jack's claim or even establish he"promoted" his belief. This is again libelous.

Example 8. Ridiculous headers like "Gun Violence". He hasn't participated in any. Why is it there, because he has an opinion on it? It gives the perception that he's involved or has been involved in gun violence the way it's being presented, keeping in spirit with the way bios of others are kept record of on Misplaced Pages, so why is Jack's done differntly in a way to promote this perception? Bias. It's again libelous.

I'm going to stop right here becuase the overwhelming majority of the claims made on this page are sourced with opinion pieces rather than any direct quotes or evidence and it's chalk full of opinions, libelous accusations and subjective choice of words in various places intended to pursuade the opinion of the person reading, which is itself, again, libelous. This isn't informational, its accusational and it's being held hostage by an activist.

Get your act together and stop the war against another living human being using his bio as a weapon, it's beyond absurd and far outside of any idological leftist belief I've ever encountered to do this to a living human being, yet here we are. Dislike people all you like, but stop being dishonest if we're going to claim someone else is being dishonest. An honest effort isn't being made here. Let people be who they are without all this bullshit editorializing and we can decide for ourselves what to think. We don't need people taking creative liberty with the bios of other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.78.211 (talk • contribs) 22:22, June 27, 2020 (UTC)

Neither one of those things are fact, both are matter of opinion and both libelous... This statement is, under United States law, self-contradictory. Something cannot be both "opinion" and "libelous" in the United States - statements of opinion are per se not libelous. Only false claims of fact are actionable. If you don't know the difference, you probably shouldn't be commenting on this sort of issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This is completely wrong and unsourced, try facts: If a statement of opinion implies some false underlying facts, it could be defamatory, hence libel, stop editing with false information.

It's neither wrong nor unsourced. You may wish to review Cornell Law School's legal dictionary. In pertinent part: To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Pizzagate is making the rounds on TikTok it seems... I was about to collapse this as a time wasting troll, as the content is hardly libelous. And I wouldn't stop anyone else from collapsing this as a time waster. But the IP does raise one good point: about a third of the sources to Posobiec's page are opinion pieces, which strikes me as bad use of sources. But otherwise the IP's claims ring hollow and show a clear lack of understanding of libel, or Misplaced Pages, or wacky far-right thinkers. CaptainEek ⚓ 06:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Art Pope

IP 71.69.197.7 repeatedly edits and inserts same material with the source being a student's letter to the editor to a student newspaper, in a Biography of a Living Person. See: IP 71.69.197.7 would not go Talk page to discuss why this was or was not a Reliable Source. A letter to the editor is not edited by the publishing paper, verified, etc., it is simply the original work of the author of the letter. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page . . . Request if IP 71.69.197.7 continues to undo deletion or reinsert material that is Not a Reliable source, that he be blocked.

References

1. https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2018/09/Greyson_-Alexander-JNMD-2018.pdf
2. https://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2017/10/art-popes-racist-history-with-unc

Let me remind the poster above of Misplaced Pages's principle of assume good faith. Perhaps some simple searching might have answered the question of whether the aforementioned letter to the editor is accurate, before rushing right to trying to get an IP block. In fact there are a number of good sources on this incident available online including the Daily Tar Heel article about the protest, and not one but two articles about the ensuing student court procedure in which Algenon L. Marbley, now a Federal judge, was acquitted. Finally Art Pope responded to the letter on his own website.

I've never heard of any of these individuals before so I won't insert myself into the argument or the edit war, but it appears to me there's plenty of good sourcing for this incident to be included in this BLP, and since it involves another individual that Misplaced Pages finds notable, I think it probably should be in there. --Krelnik (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate Krelnik’s reference to “good faith,” which is why I did not appeal to this notice board until the third time (now fourth) time that the material was repeatedly inserted. Also before I appealed, I asked in good faith for a discussion on the Art Pope article’s Talk page, and the poster IP 71.69.197.7 did not do so.

I asked for action because it is the express Wiki policy that for a BLP “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article . . . .” Note “immediately.” It further states “If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.” After three (now four) times that the material has been “repeatedly inserted” I am in good faith requesting the appropriate action on this noticeboard

In regards to Krelnik substantive comments and his sources:

First, the January 17, 1975 Daily Tarheel article does not refer to Pope.

Second, the February 20, 1975 Daily Tarheel article reports on the “Undergraduate Court” proceedings conducted by the “student Attorney General Nita Mitchell,” rather than Pope having personally “sued” Marbley. This and the later Dailey Tarheel Articles reference to Pope having "initiated" a complaint or charges in the context of the Student Court proceeding conducted by the Student Attorney General and jury, rather than Pope personally pursuing a suit against Marbley as stated in the 2017 letter to the editor.

Back on the main point, a student’s 2017 letter to the editor on events in 1975 is not a reliable source. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability § Self-published sources. At best it is the equivalent of a self-published or user-generated content, with the forum where it was published, but not verified or edited, being a student newspaper. Interestingly, Pope’s own letter to the editor might be a reliable source “about” himself, but not as a reliable source in regard to the events. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves WP:BLPSPS

Being relatively new to Wiki I apologize if formatting and links not correct. I would appreciate further guidance and appropriate action.

IP 71.69.197.7 repeatedly inserted the material sourced only by the student letter to the editor for a 5th time. IP 71.69.197.7 further added a statement attributing to Pope statements made by David Duke about “white students,” and used an anonymous posting on a political blog call “CafinatedRage” as the source. This clearly violates so many Wiki policies in general, and for a WP:BLP in particular. See WP:BLPRS, WP:BLPSPS & WP:PRIMARY (source third party letters to editor). Also WP:SYN & WP:COATRACK by merging and attributing statements by Duke to Pope in an article on Pope. Overall failure to meet WP:NPOV. According to WP:BLPREMOVE these posts should be immediately removed and stay removed. Given IP 71.69.197.7 refusal to discuss on article Talk page, and repeated insertions and undos, with the apparent goal to attribute David Duke and Klan racism to Pope, is this not out right WP:Vandalism rather than a a good faith encyclopedia entry? Again, request assistance and appropriate action.

References

1. https://caffeinatedrage.com/2020/06/25/moving-toward-dystopian-higher-ed-in-north-carolina-art-popes-appointment-the-the-unc-board/

Krelnik not sure if those articles you found would help any; the Daily Tarheel appears to be a student newspaper, so rather doubtful for use in a BLP. I don't have access to newspapers.com, but a google search didn't pick up any other press that have noticed the incident at all. Unless there is something better, it looks WP:Undue to mention it. It is up to the original IP to source controversial claims adequately, especially for a BLP.

I posted a message to 71.69.197.7 on their talkpage alerting them to BLP policy and edit warring; if they continue, try WP:AN3. Btw, please sign with 4 tildes ~ <those things. It makes it easier to work out who is saying what. Curdle (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm..may have spoken too soon about nothing being out there- found this Print news and raise hell p 265-267 look interesting Curdle (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Kaushik Basu

Kaushik Basu I am Kaushik Basu. I tried to make some small changes on the page, such as changing the statement about my moral beliefs and also changing my photograph. But each time someone is removing my edits and reverting it back. In fact, today I changed the photograph. And now, a few hours later, I find it has gone back to the one that was there earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaushik Basu1952 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes people on Misplaced Pages can be really excessively obstructive. I've updated the image for you. However, I would suggest if you have any further suggestions for updates to the page, that you use the process outlined at Misplaced Pages:Simple conflict of interest edit request. -- zzuuzz 15:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

(EC) Hi, your attempts to change the image mostly didn't work properly which was probably one of the reasons for the reversion even if it may have been better to fix your mistakes. The image change has been implemented by User:Zzuuzz. I agree with them as the newer photograph to looks better due to the lower level of reflection in your glasses amongst other details. That said, you should bear in mind that your views on photograph that best represents you are only likely to be given minor consideration if there is dispute. In terms of the other changes, while I understand this may be confusing, unfortunately we cannot change your beliefs or anything else, based solely on what you tell us here. We may be able to make some limited changes to details based on stuff you have self-published elsewhere per WP:BLPSELFPUB. The best scenario is if other sources from reputable publishers have published these details (

Paula Bennett

Paula Bennett is a politician who has just announced her retirement. The section Release of private information about beneficiaries contains the names of living people whose personal information she leaked as a cabinet minister. Should those names be removed ? Stuartyeates (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Rosianne Cutajar

Article says that she was elected directly to the Maltese Parliament in the 2019 elections. There were no general elections held in 2019 in Malta. The bit that states that she became a member of parliament by virtue of a casual election following the 2017 elections is correct. There have not been any general elections since.

Dhar Mann

Dhar Mann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 

Remove page under Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page.

Liable information is continuously added without sources Nikkidm (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

In fact the material you were deleting was the only part of the page that was at all well sourced. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

And it's just deen deleted under WP:G4. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Steve Russell (politician)

• Steve Russell (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe that Regular122 is the subject of the article. Here's a sentence from the bio with added emphasis: During Operation Iraqi Freedom, Russell commanded the 1st Battalion, 22nd Infantry 'Regulars'. Regular122 comes periodically, insistent on not including information about how Russell lost to Kendra Horn in the 2018 elections, which is a pretty big detail for Russell's biography. Russell's role in the capture of Saddam Hussein is, in Regular122's view, important enough to keep in the lead. I've written on Regular122's talk page and gotten no response. What can we do here? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

As always, it is probably better to worry about the edits than the editor. If the editor is removing information that should not be removed, I suggest someone speak to them, and if they keep at it without discussion, they can be blocked. Who they are doesn't matter much unless they chose to speak about it, or there is a belief they are in violation of WP:PAID (as that is a terms of use requirement, among other things) or WP:SOCK. While I'm normally a strong advocate of keeping discussion about articles on article talk pages; if an editor keeps removing sourced information without a good reason, or keeps adding unsourced information and the editor is inexperienced, that is one time when it's good to speak directly to the editor about it. It doesn't seem anyone has tried that. The only things I see on the editor's talk page including via a quick check of the history are a bunch of permission related deletions for images, one comment about how we've stopped including religion and this which only talks about COI stuff rather than about why any edits were actually a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the contested edits, IMO they're not an improvement but not so bad that it's worth demanding the editor stop and start a discussion or be blocked. So instead I've opened a discussion on the article talk page and told the editor they should join it. If the editor refuses to join the discussion and keeps trying to implement their changes, or joins it and there is clear consensus against their proposal but they keep trying to make their changes; it should be simple to ask for a block. Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Golden State Killer move request discussion

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Golden State Killer#Requested move 30 June 2020. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Claim about David Patterson (historian)

An experianced and very respected editor and Misplaced Pages administrator made a claim on Holocaust denial talk page while discussing a Patterson's book (isbn=978-1-107-04074-8) published by Cambridge University Press. The claim is Patterson essentially equates Islam with "Jihadism" and claims that the extermination of Jews is inherent in the Sharia. in this diff. Does WP:BLPTALK apply? Can someone review and remove if the claim found as inappropriate. Thank you. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight: you didn't think it at least courteous to notify User:Zero0000? That comment was over a week ago. Pinging the others involved in this discussion @The Four Deuces, Buidhe, and El C:. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not involved in the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 09:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Nor am I. El_C 09:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Infinity Knight, what I see on that page is a thorough analysis by Zero0000 that shows your preferred content to be incorrect and bordering on tendentious. Your best bet here is to thank Zero for his diligence and helping you to avoid a gross error. Guy (help!) 12:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

To start with, the BLP rules are not intended to prevent us from arguing that a source is unreliable. Without the ability to discuss the reliability of sources, we cannot do our work as policy requires of us. In this particular case, I already gave a source for my comments on the talk page, and I repeated on the talk page that I had given a source before ∞K filed this report. The source is a review of Patterson by Jay Geller (Professor of Modern Jewish Culture at Vanderbilt University). For those who can't see past the paywall, here is the pertinent passage: "Though he states that 'Jihadism' is only a 'perversion' of Islam (p. 38), he all but identifies Islam with it. When discussing Jihadi torture he states: 'The question remains as to whether Islam can de-Sharia itself: Is it possible for a Muslim to object to the torture prescribed by Sharia in the name of Sharia? If not, then it is impossible for a Muslim to oppose either Jew hatred or torture. One goes with the other' (p167). Since Patterson gives no instance of an Islamic objection to torture, the reader may assume that so long as Muslims, whether self-described Jihadis or not, follow Sharia, they will ultimately sanction genocide in general and the extermination of the Jews specifically." Geller doesn't stop there, but what I have quoted is enough to see that what I wrote is almost verbatim from my source.

Nor did I base my opinion only on Geller's review. I examined another of Patterson's books "Anti-semitism and its Meta-Physical Origins" and found it to have an extended diatribe on Islam (and Christianity) with the most weak allowance you can imagine that not all Muslims or Christians are genocidal. Another academic reviewer writes that Patterson comes from a Jewish-fundamentalist viewpoint, believing that "anti-Semitism is rooted in the anti-Semites’ desire to become like God themselves, and that by killing the Jews — God’s witnesses — they are killing God...". And, again, "the existence of God and more precisely the God of Judaism, in assuming the existence of the soul, the truth of the revelation to the prophets of Judaism, the truth of the Jewish holy scriptures (the Torah, Talmud, Midrash, etc.), the truth of the claim that the Jews are the chosen people, the truth of the narrative of the Jews’ mission, that they are chosen for the absolute ethical responsibility, the truth of the claim that Israel is the land of the chosen people and that the Jews have a special connection to God through this holy land, that Hebrew is the holy tongue, that we all descend from Adam, etc. These all form a set of premises presumed to be true throughout the book." (Jews who don't believe such things are "self-hating" or "anti-semitic Jews".) I could go on, but this is too long already. Is this the sort of work we want to use as a source on Muslims? Zero 14:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The posting seems to accurately reflect Patterson's position. If it doesn't, then perhaps someone could recommend a better phrasing. TFD (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This article could use more eyes and a review

Please take a look at Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz. I am concerned whether recent changes to the lead are indeed in line with BLP: . Short summary: this is undeiably a right-wing publicist but is it neutral (WP:UNDUE) and BLP-fair to say in his short lead that he is "Far-right" and "antosemitic" and such? Comments welcome. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Natalia Dyer

• Natalia Dyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is being used as a gossip sheet, with repeated addition of unencyclopedic content. It's already protected, so perhaps a stronger lock is needed. More eyes appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like there's plenty of reliable sources establishing that she has been in a relationship with her costar for 4 years to be edit warring about. I understand Misplaced Pages is not a gossip rag, but this type of information should not be contentious. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Policy question

The lead of a BLP includes harsh WP:REDFLAG criticism and WP:LABEL. The BLP publicly denies the criticism and label. WP:PUBLICFIGURE states: If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported.

Survey question: Can editors override BLP policy and exclude the denial, be it via a local TP survey or RfC?

Please respond YES or NO in the Survey section, and be brief with any explanation for your iVote. Also keep in mind a DISCUSSION section can be added if necessary. _Talk 📧 17:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• NO - the denial must be included in response to the criticism/labeling, and the only option would be a community-wide consensus to change the BLP policy itself. _Talk 📧 17:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• This is not a proper survey. It seems obvious that your post was prompted by the proposal at Talk:Donald Trump, where you support the addition of text in the lead section saying something like "Trump has denied accusations of racism." Putting forth a loaded question ("Can editors override a BLP policy?") does not get anyone anywhere, especially when stripped of context. There are many factors at play. What is "harsh"? What is "criticism" (as opposed to well-sourced descriptors supported by citations to reliable sources)? What is a "label" (as opposed to a description)? Saying "Many of X's comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist" is different from saying "X is a racist." You link WP:REDFLAG, which applies only to "exceptional claims." To determine whether a claim is "exceptional" requires a fact-specific assessment of what the specific statement is and what the support in RS is for it. In the Trump bio case, this is about judgment and the application of policy, not about "policy itself" or "local consensus vs. community consensus." If you actually are looking for editor feedback on a specific point, you need to put a neutral pointer on a noticeboard, not a distorted version of the inquiry at issue. Neutrality 18:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• 100% agree with the above post by Neutrality.Smeat75 (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• This is push polling. Stop it, Atsme, you know better than this. Guy (help!) 22:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Consensus#By soliciting outside opinions supports what I am doing. You and Neutrality are interfering with an editor trying to reach a consensus about a very important matter that involves BLP policy. I did not name a particular instance for a reason - it will apply across the board, not just to one article. This needs to be clarified for many reasons as it effects NPP/AfC/AfD and so many other arguments regarding policy. I don't know on what authority you are attempting to stop this survey because IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy, and neither is the marketing article you wikilinked. _Talk 📧 23:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Graham Linehan

In our BLP of Graham Linehan we cover criticism of his anti-transgender activism in multiple reliable sources, which is fine. However we also say he drew criticism on Twitter for its storyline of a 2008 episode of The IT Crowd. This is based upon an interview where Linehan said he was "called a bigot on Twitter". We also use a podcast from Resistance Radio as a source.

I have no problem with any of the reliable sources that criticize him, but I question whether we should list some unnamed twitter users or someone with a podcast along with the legitimate sources. The citations to high-quality sources such as The Sunday Times, The Telegraph.'The Guardian and The Independent do a great job of documenting his anti-transgender activism. Do we really need to pile on opinions from podcasts and unnamed twitter users?

I also question the use of inews.co.uk, attitude.co.uk, and beyondthejoke.co.uk. in a BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I definitely would say no to the podcast, on the basis that inews and attitude are not reliable sources.

To make this generic: A BLP goes on some interview on a show, or says on social media, that is clearly itself not an RS, and says something maybe off the cuff or intentional that can be taken as a negative against the person (*). If that was the extent of it, it would be fully improper for a WP editor to use that source and bring it up into the article per BLP reasons, even if it is already supporting other "charges" against that BLP.

In constast, if that is clearly picked up by RSes, and subsequently made into an issue covered in RSes, (as it was the case around JK Rollings recently) then it becomes fair game in a BLP assuming all other factors considered like PUBLICFIGURE. But this is where the line has to start, is the coverage in RSes. So the case where some third-party sources that aren't RSes or are weak RSes (as I'd see these source), that wouldn't pass the bar for sourcing an issue like this for BLP, so that itself should be kept out. We want our quality RSes to note "This was an issue for this BLP" , and not a WP editor nor weak RSes.

Assuming we're talking the tweet that Linehan alluded to in the 2008 interview, there's absoluletely no need to reference it if the person is not a public figure. If it were someone that met the public figure standard, maybe, but there's no need to dredge up an unknown name for our readership. --Masem (t) 19:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(*)On the other hand, if the BLP is speaking factually about a project they did , like providing development information, behind the scenes details, or anything else to flesh out info like that, that's fine to use the source without a problem, as we're not talking a BLP issue here. --Masem (t) 19:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I say stick with well known reliable sources. I have looked a a few episodes of The IT Crowd. Some themes are very... unreconstructed. Guy (help!) 22:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

BJ Fogg

My name is BJ Fogg. I am an academic and scientist focused on behavior science. The Misplaced Pages page about me has a "Criticism" section. Well, I have some criticisms of that section. For example:

• The last paragraph is cited to an opinion piece in a college paper run by students.

• Most of this book chapter is gushing about me, yet the only thing it is cited for are criticisms in the very last 2 paragraphs.

• None of these sources actually criticize me as alleged by the Misplaced Pages page. Neither does The Economist.

The rest of the section is similar. Citations to Twitter, cherry-picking an ounce of criticism out of an ocean of praise, citing guest blogs, and making neutral/positive content look negative by labeling it a "Criticism." In looking into this issue, I was told about WP:BLPBALANCE:

The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Misplaced Pages article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

My request is that the section be moved to the Talk page for storage, until a neutral editor writes a balanced Reception section with proper sources. Drbjfogg (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Heads up: Ed Henry

• Ed Henry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ed Henry has just been terminated by Fox following accusations of sexual abuse. Please watchlist. Guy (help!) 22:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment