![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Mike Lee (bull rider) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A new user with a single purpose account keeps repeatedly inserting ( diff example) that an individual with the same name as the account is the new wife of Mike Lee (bull rider). I cannot verify this information, even on Mr. Lee’s Facebook page (at least, not as of today), and all existing sources indicate he is married to someone else (though the most recent is a few years old) so I don’t know if we have a deranged fan, an overeager newlywed or what. We’ve warned her once after multiple reversions, but figured more eyes can’t hurt. Montanabw (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Jerry Falwell Jr. has recently been in the news and the board of trustees at Liberty University have required him to take an indefinite leave of absence from his role as president of that institution. The university's article is at risk of becoming a coat rack with lots of detail about its former president. Editors familiar with BLP are requested to watchlist that article. Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 13:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Thomas Zeltner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Hello, Changes have been made to Thomas Zeltner's Wikipedia article in the introductory paragraph as well as in the Current Position section in order to reflect his newest position as Chairman and interim CEO of the WHO Foundation (as of May 2020). These changes have not been properly sourced at first. However, after flagging this to me I inserted secondary sources to prove that the changes I made reflect the current situation. Therefore, if there are no further concerns regarding the changes made, would it be possible to Kindly remove the information box at the top stating that the neutrality of this article is disputed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:1205:c6a7:ded0:28ed:c2f0:6f8d:e2b9 ( talk • contribs) 13:14, August 6, 2020 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Reliability of PETA. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 03:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
An interesting question has arisen at Jackie Walker [1] about how we should describe someone as belonging to a particular religion. What does our policy say about the choice between saying that “She is Jewish, though she was raised as a Catholic for part of her childhood” and “While she was brought up as a Catholic for at least some of her childhood she has self-identified as Jewish”? Is there a difference between saying someone is an X and someone self-identifies as X? In general, if someone says they are Jewish, or Catholic, or Muslim etc do we need further evidence before describing them as such? Are there circumstances in which we would use the qualification “self-identified”? Burrobert ( talk) 04:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Asked if she would describe herself as an anti-Zionist and not an anti-Semite, she said: "Yes. I certainly wouldn't call myself an anti-Semite as I am Jewish and my partner is Jewish."Despite her denial that she is antisemitic, if sources characterize her as being antisemitic, I think such characterizations are valid for inclusion. Bus stop ( talk) 13:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
There is discussion at Talk:John_Esposito#Incorrect_removal_of_Category:Muslim_apologists on whether the category "Muslim apologists" is appropriate at John Esposito. Grufo has cited a source that criticizes a chapter in a book that Esposito edited as "apologia" and "full of mistakes". My argument is that the criticism is specifically directed at the co-authors of the chapter, not Esposito. A google search shows that the term "Muslim apologist" is often used by critics against Esposito. Any comment would be appreciated. VR talk 20:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Kanye West ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Will some editors here review this addition made by Wikipro43245 ( talk · contribs)? Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 06:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
After a dozen or so removals by various SPAs of Arie Vardi's sourced year of birth, and no response to talk messages or edit summaries, I'm at my wits' end. There is similar action happening at Wikidata ( d:Q3622545 and the Hebrew Wikipedia, but not at the Italian Wikipedia (where the YoB is wrong). -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 10:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
The article for Rachel Hurst has been revised by me twice, at the request of Rachel Hurst herself. She finds the current article - which keeps being replaced - factually incorrect and offensive in its use of language around disability. The revised article was written using a CV supplied by Rachel. I would be most grateful if the current article could be taken down and replaced with the one that I revised it to. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuttleyJed ( talk • contribs) 13:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
There are many inaccuracies in my wiki including false health information and false financial information. Both without credible cited articles. It allows strangers to make edits but when I make edits to add details to existing information or to delete falsehoods it will not allow me to do it.
Does Wikipedia allow this sort of abuse on their site? I can't figure out how to edit in the proper information or even to delete the lies. Can someone please advise.
Best, Carole Radziwill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.13.212.182 ( talk) 18:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Non-neutral point of view
The same user has linked a libelous article to the page about Forrest Galante several times. All articles point to the same defamatory article several times.
The article is an opinion about Mr. Galante, containing personal attacks like the term "parachute scientist," of whom Mr. Galante is the only target, so far. The article also makes claims to the feelings of the entire scientific community, which would be impossible. While I think it's important to note everything, both good and bad, this article is a negative display of the author's personal opinion about wildlife biologists on television. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Online801 ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Jack Buckby is upset that we are "lying" to our readers by characterising him as far right, after a Channel 4 interview in which he repudiated at least some of his more extreme views. He is also angry that we do not describe him as an author and researcher (he now works for a think-tank). I at least added the interview to the article, and engaged him on Twitter to explain our position on independent sources (he was unconvinced). I could not find RS for the author and researcher, but my Google-fu is weak. If anyone feels kindly disposed towards the "sinner that repenteth" then please help with that if you would be so kind. Guy ( help! - typo?) 20:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
More eyes are appreciated at Zubeen Garg, please. While he is an accomplished musician, there's a lot of listcruft in the infobox and lede, one editor in particular seems highly focussed on this subject, and I'm not entirely sure there's full objectivity going on here, like with this puffery in the lede, which was attributed to the primary source, (Garg). Please see my relevant talk page comments. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Recent edits by the subject's agent, followed by a new WP:SPA. Genre warring, essentially. Would appreciate more eyes on this. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 23:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Alex Morse, a young gay mayor, used gay hook-up apps as an adjunct professor hooking up with numerous students. He says all were consensual.
Oh and he’s running for Congress.
I think the lead needs to be purged of some of this per Undue. Would appreciate other eyes to be sure. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 01:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Mossimo Giannulli ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mossimo Gianulli is a fashion designer. He is also married to Lori Loughlin. Both have been charged with crimes relating to fixing college admissions. In the infobox, it says "criminal penalty: Pending (Announced on August 21, 2020 at 11:00 am)". I have never seen anything like this before. Is that acceptable? Mo Billings ( talk) 19:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
"Criminal penalty: Pending (Announced on August 21, 2020 at 11:00 am)". It contains too much information. "Wikipedia is not written in news style". Bus stop ( talk) 20:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Can people keep an eye on the Neil Woodford article? Neil Woodword is a prominent former British fund manager who's fund, Woodford Investment Management collapsed last year for which he is primarily blamed. BLP violating vandalism (presumably by a vengeful investor) diff stayed up for 3 weeks before being removed by another IP user. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Just saw this RFD (most of them leaning towards deletion) and this makes me wonder, are redirects to BLP pages subject to BLP rules? FMecha ( to talk| to see log) 20:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Akilah Hughes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There seems to be a continued campaign by alt-right editors to add a section about a lawsuit that was thrown out of court and did not set legal precedent as the judge did not rule in the matter. The information therein is poorly-sourced and is irrelevant to this person's public figure status. The talk page for this entry provides evidence of bias with the main editor claiming that the lawsuit is why the individual represented by this entry is a public figure, when that is not the case. Continuously adding this copyright dispute section to this entry is akin to adding a copyright dispute section to the Sony ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page for every YouTube video in which a Digital Millennium Copyright Act ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) claim was issued. These standards must be applied evenly across Wikipedia entries. If the editors in question would like to add the legal proceeding in question to an entry about Copyright Law or Digital IP, they will still encounter issues as this lawsuit set no legal precedent. This malicious editing has been a problem since the genesis of this entry. Kiwifruitbowl ( talk) 21:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia continues to promote a libelous and defamatory source, without providing Wikipedia users with the very factual counter articles.
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. [1] All facets of this reference and its libelous and defamatory claims should be deleted from Wikipedia, in the interest of delivering a factual account. At a minimum, Wikipedia readers should be aware of the serious flaws in it elucidated by the Robert Mays article. [2] Most importantly, this article includes links to primary source references, like the video of Alexander and the Dalai Lama, that readers can check for themselves, supporting the factual nature of its conclusions. Wikipedia users deserve this access to primary source material to make up their own minds. Eben Alexander was never found guilty of malpractice, and was not terminated from any position "for cause"-- these 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: [3] 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. Wikipedia users should be aware of these facts about Dittrich, if you insist on keeping the reference in the article.
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: [4] Correcting this erroneous information on Wikipedia greatly improves the reliability of this article to reflect the facts of the case.
The Mays article makes excellent points criticizing Dittrich's sensationalist writing (for Esquire's experiment with a $1.99 paywall, no less, all in an attempt to profit from the distortions of such sensational writing in trying to debunk a book that was #2 for the year 2013 on the New York Times nonfiction bestseller list, published in over 40 languages). Wikipedia users should not be fooled by Dittrich's fiction - they can make up their own minds, given that Mays includes primary source links, like the Alexander-Dalai Lama video, that completely rebuts Dittrich's erroneous interpretation of the events. In the interest of getting closer to truth, Wikipedia should provide the Mays information to them - let them make up their own minds based on all of the facts, not just a one-sided, corrupt version. Thanks for your attention and time. Ealexander3 ( talk) 13:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Also, the link above for "WMF legal team" failed - please give me an actual link so I can talk with your attorneys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealexander3 ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
[My apologies for the formatting error with these 3 references - not sure why they weren't handled normally, and somehow got placed in an article several spaces below this one].
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321361929_Eben_Alexander's_Near-Death_Experience_How_an_Esquire_Article_Distorted_the_Facts
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-inGigVypl4
^ https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1012370
Ealexander3 ( talk) 21:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Until the last few weeks, hundreds of sources reported that Belinda was born in 1989 ( example). It was until recently that Belinda's website started to say that she was born in 1992. Several IPs have edit-warred about it and the best solution I could find was to include both of them with a note clarifying the birth years. My experience working here tells me that once the protection expires IPs will edit-war once again. My question is, what should it be done here? Should it be left as it is now, should it say "born 1989" with the note clarifying it, or should it say "born 1992" with the note clarifying it? © Tbhotch ™ ( en-3). 03:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Reporting a possible biographies of living persons violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1302:D546:18F3:AF36:D25D:2037 ( talk) 00:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
In the box with the ratios of the coach Ratko Rudić, the wrong information was inserted, about his current club and the trained teams.
Unfortunately, for the Cascais Water Polo Club (which is unrelated to this situation) and for the Portuguese water polo, coach Ratko Rudić is not part of this team, nor of any other in Portugal.
Whoever made this change, did it for fun or out of malice. If that were the case, I ask you to promote accountability mechanisms and correct the information accordingly.
As a registered member of the Wikipedia community and as a member of the board of the Cascais Water Polo Club, in Cascais, Portugal, I appreciate the diligence. Thank you.
Best regards Luis Albino — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalbino ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
This article is not about Dan Gibson. It is to discredit him and his work with accusations that has no ground. Just because he proves that Muhammad was born in Petra... (what is against the teachings of the Quran)
link to docu (on request) 8Jg5d3w4ROQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiko Rover ( talk • contribs) 16:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The page has been constantly, wrongfully edited for over a year now. The offender is usually a user who goes by the name Marylandbum34 and this user repeatedly makes edits that are damaging to an individuals professional career regarding employment. The harassment is weekly.
The URL for the page is below:
/info/en/?search=Doug_Chapman_(American_football) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C2:4380:AB80:E01A:448:8993:B396 ( talk) 17:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The article regarding Jeremy Runnells and the CES Letter is written with a great deal of bias. For a biography of a living person, it appears to be out of compliance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.40.110 ( talk) 20:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
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 -talk- 16:36, 15 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 -talk- 20:06, 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 [men who wish to come inside]"). 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 -talk- 20:49, 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)
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 [LGBT] 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 [pronoun introductions are] 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)
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)
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
-talk- 21:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Updated links to the articles to go directly to the sections in question.
Crossroads
-talk-
23:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
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 hormonesthen you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside."
She said that she was a survivor of both domestic abuse and sexual assault. In the same interview, she also stated her belief that "[opening] 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", [despite(which I would personally prefer)
/as well as(which I feel leans a little too heavily on what - off-wikipedia - I would label as terf rhetoric)
] stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection.
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 -talk- 15:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
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 ~ TALK 08:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
We are currently mentioning only two extremely large and relevant Trans charities on the main page and only one on the politics oneis false. As of when that comment was made, at the main page [9] three charities are mentioned (GLAAD, Trevor Project, Mermaids), and at the politics page [10], two are mentioned (GLAAD, Mermaids), with GLAAD mentioned two separate times. Crossroads -talk- 15:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
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 ~ TALK 00:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
In refering to the safety of "natal girls and womeni.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 hormonesi.e. TRANSWOMEN with Gender certificates –
then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.
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 womenis 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)
~ BOD ~ TALK 09:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
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.".
As you can see, NBC simply gives a direct quote from the essay. [14]
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Our "About" page states: "Wikipedia 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 Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
open and transparent consensusand to report
neutrally what the various reliable sources say by discussion and consensus, and to avoid
Censorship or imposing "official" points of view. Crossroads -talk- 20:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
to avoid Censorship or imposing "official" points of view" but instead adopt your proposal above, which mandates exactly to impose an official wording... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
open and transparent consensusand 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 ~ TALK 21:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
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 ~ TALK 00:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
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.
~ BOD ~ TALK 11:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
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"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."(mistakenly/note 1)believed would result in letting trans women into women's toilets. She wrote(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.
~ BOD ~ TALK 10:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Sources all the above, but these two below at the very least cover the quotes:
[J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto'
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351
[Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html
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 ~ TALK 14:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Updated ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Updated following advice ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC) fixed error made during my last update. ~ BOD ~ TALK 18:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"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.
A couple of things to be clarified with regard to the legal issues addressed above:
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:
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)
References
"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’."
By "neutral sources", I obviously don't mean "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.", as stated at WP:BIASED SOURCES. I routinely point to WP:BIASED SOURCES in arguments and/or state that, per WP:Neutral, what is neutral in common discourse is not what being neutral means on Wikipedia. Still, in this case, I simply mean sources that report on both sides of the debate without judging either side. At the Rowling talk page, there is some concern about not giving better context with regard to Rowling's position and/or mentioning that she has received some support. This is why including Dana International's support of Rowling has been proposed in this RfC. Well, I think that this and this The Guardian reference are among the sources that do a good job of reporting on the matter neutrally.
For example, among other things, the first source ("Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate?") states, "But beyond this there is huge disagreement about how different positions – whether those of transgender activists or gender-critical feminists – express that commitment in practice, and indeed what the nuances of those different positions are. Gender critical feminists disagree with the trans rights activists' view that gender identity is separate from one's biological sex, and that it should be given priority in terms of law-making and policy. They fear that sex is being argued into non-existence and that this will erode rights hard-won by women in the face of historical biological discrimination. Others regard the focus on biological sex as transphobic. They argue that while they do not deny the reality of biological sex there must be a recognition of complexities beyond binary definition, and that people should have the right to privacy around their sex characteristics at birth (as was agreed in the European convention on human rights in 2002, which led to the current Gender Recognition Act)."
Among other things, the second source ("JK Rowling: from magic to the heart of a Twitter storm") states, "Arrayed on Rowling's side are some of the veteran voices of feminism, including the radical Julie Bindel, who spoke out in support this weekend: 'Her political position is nothing to do with transgender issues. She has always been a feminist and she has inspired generations of young women and men to look into issues of sex-based discrimination,' she told the Observer. [...] The controversy looks unlikely to die out soon precisely because Rowling still means so much to so many. The contending attitudes also go to the heart of the question of whether transgender rights affect the rights of cisgender women and girls and of whether the transgender community's fears of abuse and violence are more valid and pressing. Beyond even that, the very nature of feminine and masculine characteristics, and of who gets to define them, seems to be in flux."
The above sources are just two suggestions when it comes to using sources to relay both sides. I'll leave all the debating on what to include to others. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 03:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 03:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
There is an ongoing content dispute discussion at Talk:David Daniels (countertenor) regarding sexual assault allegations made against Daniels. As I have noted on the article talk page, I believe the inclusion of the accusers' names violates WP:BLP's assumption of privacy for people who are not the subject of our articles. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone want to take a look at a question posed by an IP today Talk:Mark_Z._Jacobson#Final_or_not? The secondary source, Retraction Watch, [17] says Jacobson was "ordered to pay legal fees" but the IP suggests "the court granted Clack and PNAS's motions for attorneys fees and costs" would be a more correct wording. It's clear from the source that the authors of the source understand that the order has not been finalized, and that they chose the headline that they did regardless. But I also get the IP's point. If anyone's wondering, Retraction Watch has previously been the topic of discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. [18] Cheers, Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 04:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
From what i can read and understand /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Notes, WP:BLP cannot be applied for dead people who are confirmed dead by reliable news sources. Can anyone clarify this? Jehowahyereh ( talk) 01:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Mike Lee (bull rider) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A new user with a single purpose account keeps repeatedly inserting ( diff example) that an individual with the same name as the account is the new wife of Mike Lee (bull rider). I cannot verify this information, even on Mr. Lee’s Facebook page (at least, not as of today), and all existing sources indicate he is married to someone else (though the most recent is a few years old) so I don’t know if we have a deranged fan, an overeager newlywed or what. We’ve warned her once after multiple reversions, but figured more eyes can’t hurt. Montanabw (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Jerry Falwell Jr. has recently been in the news and the board of trustees at Liberty University have required him to take an indefinite leave of absence from his role as president of that institution. The university's article is at risk of becoming a coat rack with lots of detail about its former president. Editors familiar with BLP are requested to watchlist that article. Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 13:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Thomas Zeltner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Hello, Changes have been made to Thomas Zeltner's Wikipedia article in the introductory paragraph as well as in the Current Position section in order to reflect his newest position as Chairman and interim CEO of the WHO Foundation (as of May 2020). These changes have not been properly sourced at first. However, after flagging this to me I inserted secondary sources to prove that the changes I made reflect the current situation. Therefore, if there are no further concerns regarding the changes made, would it be possible to Kindly remove the information box at the top stating that the neutrality of this article is disputed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:1205:c6a7:ded0:28ed:c2f0:6f8d:e2b9 ( talk • contribs) 13:14, August 6, 2020 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Reliability of PETA. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 03:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
An interesting question has arisen at Jackie Walker [1] about how we should describe someone as belonging to a particular religion. What does our policy say about the choice between saying that “She is Jewish, though she was raised as a Catholic for part of her childhood” and “While she was brought up as a Catholic for at least some of her childhood she has self-identified as Jewish”? Is there a difference between saying someone is an X and someone self-identifies as X? In general, if someone says they are Jewish, or Catholic, or Muslim etc do we need further evidence before describing them as such? Are there circumstances in which we would use the qualification “self-identified”? Burrobert ( talk) 04:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Asked if she would describe herself as an anti-Zionist and not an anti-Semite, she said: "Yes. I certainly wouldn't call myself an anti-Semite as I am Jewish and my partner is Jewish."Despite her denial that she is antisemitic, if sources characterize her as being antisemitic, I think such characterizations are valid for inclusion. Bus stop ( talk) 13:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
There is discussion at Talk:John_Esposito#Incorrect_removal_of_Category:Muslim_apologists on whether the category "Muslim apologists" is appropriate at John Esposito. Grufo has cited a source that criticizes a chapter in a book that Esposito edited as "apologia" and "full of mistakes". My argument is that the criticism is specifically directed at the co-authors of the chapter, not Esposito. A google search shows that the term "Muslim apologist" is often used by critics against Esposito. Any comment would be appreciated. VR talk 20:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Kanye West ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Will some editors here review this addition made by Wikipro43245 ( talk · contribs)? Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 06:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
After a dozen or so removals by various SPAs of Arie Vardi's sourced year of birth, and no response to talk messages or edit summaries, I'm at my wits' end. There is similar action happening at Wikidata ( d:Q3622545 and the Hebrew Wikipedia, but not at the Italian Wikipedia (where the YoB is wrong). -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 10:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
The article for Rachel Hurst has been revised by me twice, at the request of Rachel Hurst herself. She finds the current article - which keeps being replaced - factually incorrect and offensive in its use of language around disability. The revised article was written using a CV supplied by Rachel. I would be most grateful if the current article could be taken down and replaced with the one that I revised it to. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuttleyJed ( talk • contribs) 13:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
There are many inaccuracies in my wiki including false health information and false financial information. Both without credible cited articles. It allows strangers to make edits but when I make edits to add details to existing information or to delete falsehoods it will not allow me to do it.
Does Wikipedia allow this sort of abuse on their site? I can't figure out how to edit in the proper information or even to delete the lies. Can someone please advise.
Best, Carole Radziwill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.13.212.182 ( talk) 18:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Non-neutral point of view
The same user has linked a libelous article to the page about Forrest Galante several times. All articles point to the same defamatory article several times.
The article is an opinion about Mr. Galante, containing personal attacks like the term "parachute scientist," of whom Mr. Galante is the only target, so far. The article also makes claims to the feelings of the entire scientific community, which would be impossible. While I think it's important to note everything, both good and bad, this article is a negative display of the author's personal opinion about wildlife biologists on television. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Online801 ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Jack Buckby is upset that we are "lying" to our readers by characterising him as far right, after a Channel 4 interview in which he repudiated at least some of his more extreme views. He is also angry that we do not describe him as an author and researcher (he now works for a think-tank). I at least added the interview to the article, and engaged him on Twitter to explain our position on independent sources (he was unconvinced). I could not find RS for the author and researcher, but my Google-fu is weak. If anyone feels kindly disposed towards the "sinner that repenteth" then please help with that if you would be so kind. Guy ( help! - typo?) 20:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
More eyes are appreciated at Zubeen Garg, please. While he is an accomplished musician, there's a lot of listcruft in the infobox and lede, one editor in particular seems highly focussed on this subject, and I'm not entirely sure there's full objectivity going on here, like with this puffery in the lede, which was attributed to the primary source, (Garg). Please see my relevant talk page comments. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Recent edits by the subject's agent, followed by a new WP:SPA. Genre warring, essentially. Would appreciate more eyes on this. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 23:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Alex Morse, a young gay mayor, used gay hook-up apps as an adjunct professor hooking up with numerous students. He says all were consensual.
Oh and he’s running for Congress.
I think the lead needs to be purged of some of this per Undue. Would appreciate other eyes to be sure. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 01:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Mossimo Giannulli ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mossimo Gianulli is a fashion designer. He is also married to Lori Loughlin. Both have been charged with crimes relating to fixing college admissions. In the infobox, it says "criminal penalty: Pending (Announced on August 21, 2020 at 11:00 am)". I have never seen anything like this before. Is that acceptable? Mo Billings ( talk) 19:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
"Criminal penalty: Pending (Announced on August 21, 2020 at 11:00 am)". It contains too much information. "Wikipedia is not written in news style". Bus stop ( talk) 20:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Can people keep an eye on the Neil Woodford article? Neil Woodword is a prominent former British fund manager who's fund, Woodford Investment Management collapsed last year for which he is primarily blamed. BLP violating vandalism (presumably by a vengeful investor) diff stayed up for 3 weeks before being removed by another IP user. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Just saw this RFD (most of them leaning towards deletion) and this makes me wonder, are redirects to BLP pages subject to BLP rules? FMecha ( to talk| to see log) 20:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Akilah Hughes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There seems to be a continued campaign by alt-right editors to add a section about a lawsuit that was thrown out of court and did not set legal precedent as the judge did not rule in the matter. The information therein is poorly-sourced and is irrelevant to this person's public figure status. The talk page for this entry provides evidence of bias with the main editor claiming that the lawsuit is why the individual represented by this entry is a public figure, when that is not the case. Continuously adding this copyright dispute section to this entry is akin to adding a copyright dispute section to the Sony ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page for every YouTube video in which a Digital Millennium Copyright Act ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) claim was issued. These standards must be applied evenly across Wikipedia entries. If the editors in question would like to add the legal proceeding in question to an entry about Copyright Law or Digital IP, they will still encounter issues as this lawsuit set no legal precedent. This malicious editing has been a problem since the genesis of this entry. Kiwifruitbowl ( talk) 21:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia continues to promote a libelous and defamatory source, without providing Wikipedia users with the very factual counter articles.
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. [1] All facets of this reference and its libelous and defamatory claims should be deleted from Wikipedia, in the interest of delivering a factual account. At a minimum, Wikipedia readers should be aware of the serious flaws in it elucidated by the Robert Mays article. [2] Most importantly, this article includes links to primary source references, like the video of Alexander and the Dalai Lama, that readers can check for themselves, supporting the factual nature of its conclusions. Wikipedia users deserve this access to primary source material to make up their own minds. Eben Alexander was never found guilty of malpractice, and was not terminated from any position "for cause"-- these 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: [3] 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. Wikipedia users should be aware of these facts about Dittrich, if you insist on keeping the reference in the article.
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: [4] Correcting this erroneous information on Wikipedia greatly improves the reliability of this article to reflect the facts of the case.
The Mays article makes excellent points criticizing Dittrich's sensationalist writing (for Esquire's experiment with a $1.99 paywall, no less, all in an attempt to profit from the distortions of such sensational writing in trying to debunk a book that was #2 for the year 2013 on the New York Times nonfiction bestseller list, published in over 40 languages). Wikipedia users should not be fooled by Dittrich's fiction - they can make up their own minds, given that Mays includes primary source links, like the Alexander-Dalai Lama video, that completely rebuts Dittrich's erroneous interpretation of the events. In the interest of getting closer to truth, Wikipedia should provide the Mays information to them - let them make up their own minds based on all of the facts, not just a one-sided, corrupt version. Thanks for your attention and time. Ealexander3 ( talk) 13:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Also, the link above for "WMF legal team" failed - please give me an actual link so I can talk with your attorneys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealexander3 ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
[My apologies for the formatting error with these 3 references - not sure why they weren't handled normally, and somehow got placed in an article several spaces below this one].
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321361929_Eben_Alexander's_Near-Death_Experience_How_an_Esquire_Article_Distorted_the_Facts
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-inGigVypl4
^ https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1012370
Ealexander3 ( talk) 21:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Until the last few weeks, hundreds of sources reported that Belinda was born in 1989 ( example). It was until recently that Belinda's website started to say that she was born in 1992. Several IPs have edit-warred about it and the best solution I could find was to include both of them with a note clarifying the birth years. My experience working here tells me that once the protection expires IPs will edit-war once again. My question is, what should it be done here? Should it be left as it is now, should it say "born 1989" with the note clarifying it, or should it say "born 1992" with the note clarifying it? © Tbhotch ™ ( en-3). 03:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Reporting a possible biographies of living persons violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1302:D546:18F3:AF36:D25D:2037 ( talk) 00:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
In the box with the ratios of the coach Ratko Rudić, the wrong information was inserted, about his current club and the trained teams.
Unfortunately, for the Cascais Water Polo Club (which is unrelated to this situation) and for the Portuguese water polo, coach Ratko Rudić is not part of this team, nor of any other in Portugal.
Whoever made this change, did it for fun or out of malice. If that were the case, I ask you to promote accountability mechanisms and correct the information accordingly.
As a registered member of the Wikipedia community and as a member of the board of the Cascais Water Polo Club, in Cascais, Portugal, I appreciate the diligence. Thank you.
Best regards Luis Albino — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalbino ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
This article is not about Dan Gibson. It is to discredit him and his work with accusations that has no ground. Just because he proves that Muhammad was born in Petra... (what is against the teachings of the Quran)
link to docu (on request) 8Jg5d3w4ROQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiko Rover ( talk • contribs) 16:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The page has been constantly, wrongfully edited for over a year now. The offender is usually a user who goes by the name Marylandbum34 and this user repeatedly makes edits that are damaging to an individuals professional career regarding employment. The harassment is weekly.
The URL for the page is below:
/info/en/?search=Doug_Chapman_(American_football) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C2:4380:AB80:E01A:448:8993:B396 ( talk) 17:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The article regarding Jeremy Runnells and the CES Letter is written with a great deal of bias. For a biography of a living person, it appears to be out of compliance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.40.110 ( talk) 20:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
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 -talk- 16:36, 15 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 -talk- 20:06, 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 [men who wish to come inside]"). 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 -talk- 20:49, 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)
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 [LGBT] 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 [pronoun introductions are] 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)
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)
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
-talk- 21:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Updated links to the articles to go directly to the sections in question.
Crossroads
-talk-
23:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
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 hormonesthen you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside."
She said that she was a survivor of both domestic abuse and sexual assault. In the same interview, she also stated her belief that "[opening] 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", [despite(which I would personally prefer)
/as well as(which I feel leans a little too heavily on what - off-wikipedia - I would label as terf rhetoric)
] stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection.
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 -talk- 15:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
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 ~ TALK 08:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
We are currently mentioning only two extremely large and relevant Trans charities on the main page and only one on the politics oneis false. As of when that comment was made, at the main page [9] three charities are mentioned (GLAAD, Trevor Project, Mermaids), and at the politics page [10], two are mentioned (GLAAD, Mermaids), with GLAAD mentioned two separate times. Crossroads -talk- 15:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
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 ~ TALK 00:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
In refering to the safety of "natal girls and womeni.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 hormonesi.e. TRANSWOMEN with Gender certificates –
then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.
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 womenis 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)
~ BOD ~ TALK 09:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
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.".
As you can see, NBC simply gives a direct quote from the essay. [14]
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Our "About" page states: "Wikipedia 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 Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
open and transparent consensusand to report
neutrally what the various reliable sources say by discussion and consensus, and to avoid
Censorship or imposing "official" points of view. Crossroads -talk- 20:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
to avoid Censorship or imposing "official" points of view" but instead adopt your proposal above, which mandates exactly to impose an official wording... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
open and transparent consensusand 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 ~ TALK 21:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
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 ~ TALK 00:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
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.
~ BOD ~ TALK 11:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
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"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."(mistakenly/note 1)believed would result in letting trans women into women's toilets. She wrote(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.
~ BOD ~ TALK 10:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Sources all the above, but these two below at the very least cover the quotes:
[J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto'
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351
[Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html
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 ~ TALK 14:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Updated ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Updated following advice ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC) fixed error made during my last update. ~ BOD ~ TALK 18:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"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.
A couple of things to be clarified with regard to the legal issues addressed above:
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:
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)
References
"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’."
By "neutral sources", I obviously don't mean "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.", as stated at WP:BIASED SOURCES. I routinely point to WP:BIASED SOURCES in arguments and/or state that, per WP:Neutral, what is neutral in common discourse is not what being neutral means on Wikipedia. Still, in this case, I simply mean sources that report on both sides of the debate without judging either side. At the Rowling talk page, there is some concern about not giving better context with regard to Rowling's position and/or mentioning that she has received some support. This is why including Dana International's support of Rowling has been proposed in this RfC. Well, I think that this and this The Guardian reference are among the sources that do a good job of reporting on the matter neutrally.
For example, among other things, the first source ("Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate?") states, "But beyond this there is huge disagreement about how different positions – whether those of transgender activists or gender-critical feminists – express that commitment in practice, and indeed what the nuances of those different positions are. Gender critical feminists disagree with the trans rights activists' view that gender identity is separate from one's biological sex, and that it should be given priority in terms of law-making and policy. They fear that sex is being argued into non-existence and that this will erode rights hard-won by women in the face of historical biological discrimination. Others regard the focus on biological sex as transphobic. They argue that while they do not deny the reality of biological sex there must be a recognition of complexities beyond binary definition, and that people should have the right to privacy around their sex characteristics at birth (as was agreed in the European convention on human rights in 2002, which led to the current Gender Recognition Act)."
Among other things, the second source ("JK Rowling: from magic to the heart of a Twitter storm") states, "Arrayed on Rowling's side are some of the veteran voices of feminism, including the radical Julie Bindel, who spoke out in support this weekend: 'Her political position is nothing to do with transgender issues. She has always been a feminist and she has inspired generations of young women and men to look into issues of sex-based discrimination,' she told the Observer. [...] The controversy looks unlikely to die out soon precisely because Rowling still means so much to so many. The contending attitudes also go to the heart of the question of whether transgender rights affect the rights of cisgender women and girls and of whether the transgender community's fears of abuse and violence are more valid and pressing. Beyond even that, the very nature of feminine and masculine characteristics, and of who gets to define them, seems to be in flux."
The above sources are just two suggestions when it comes to using sources to relay both sides. I'll leave all the debating on what to include to others. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 03:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 03:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
There is an ongoing content dispute discussion at Talk:David Daniels (countertenor) regarding sexual assault allegations made against Daniels. As I have noted on the article talk page, I believe the inclusion of the accusers' names violates WP:BLP's assumption of privacy for people who are not the subject of our articles. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone want to take a look at a question posed by an IP today Talk:Mark_Z._Jacobson#Final_or_not? The secondary source, Retraction Watch, [17] says Jacobson was "ordered to pay legal fees" but the IP suggests "the court granted Clack and PNAS's motions for attorneys fees and costs" would be a more correct wording. It's clear from the source that the authors of the source understand that the order has not been finalized, and that they chose the headline that they did regardless. But I also get the IP's point. If anyone's wondering, Retraction Watch has previously been the topic of discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. [18] Cheers, Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 04:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
From what i can read and understand /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Notes, WP:BLP cannot be applied for dead people who are confirmed dead by reliable news sources. Can anyone clarify this? Jehowahyereh ( talk) 01:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)