Talk:Julie Bindel/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Widespread discomfort language

I've removed the widespread discomfort language here according to WP:BLP because this and this are not reliable sources at to the view of an overall community. Both of them are fairly individual blogs (especially the LiveJournal link) and don't seem appropriate. If this possibly is reliable enough, I'd say it can go, with a caveat that we should have it be "Louise Evan-Wong from Lesbilicious claims ...." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no particular problem with this; the "widespread discomfort" language was a case of weasel words to begin with, and since what Bindel actually said hasn't been whitewashed, no issue here. Rebecca (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Prior to this point, there has been no suggestion that the Lesbilicious source is in any way deficient. I don't see why it's been removed, particularly given this is a protected page and the ANI request for editing the article was withdrawn? Replacement language for the "widespread discomfort" section has already been discussed above and could be replaced. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The only reason the ANI thread was withdrawn, at least for the moment, was to allow other editors to respond to the items listed. Even if something is discussed it may still be removed it it continues to violate policies. That is it needs to be written NPOV, it need to fairly represent the source, the source itself has to be reliable, etc. There are numerous violations here and simply tweaking one problem for another may not be the needed fix. -- Banjeboi 12:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you have not responded to anything else Zoe and I have said recently, which would imply that your main interest in the article has more to do with edit warring than any attempt to come to a reasonable consensus. Rebecca (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Benji has repeatedly failed to respond to questions when asked throughout this discussion and just repeats the line that policies are violated like NPOV. ZoeL (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Your sweeping mischaracterizations of myself are both uncivil and unwelcome. It's hardly surprising that I don't wish to belabour endless arguing when I've rather clearly stated my position, answered ever question, listed every issue I had and made every suggestion on how to fix it. The Zoes keep asserting there are numerous sources to replace the blogs which are not reliable sources. Present those so they can be discussed. In all the editing I've done I've never had to drill down to this level and explain more than once why we don't inject POV gems and WP:Cherry pick facts to build an attack page. It makes us all look bad and that you're campaigning to keep it is disappointing. I will not relent in helping get this article free of what I see as WP:Coatracking to present her veiws as other than what they are or more impactful than what they actually have been. That various disparaging remarks are made against me at the same time? Seems to bolster that the discussion is not only warranted but essential to help those involved in the previous editing go on record and have their actions noted. This may be painful but we'll get a better article out of it and editors who aren't willing to adhere to policies will be addressed appropriately. I am stunned at this turn of events but if it ultimately improves Wikipedia so be it. As a suggestion WP:TLDR is an appropriate read on why shorter and concise threads are often more productive. -- Banjeboi 01:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

For all your claiming to be merely concerned with sourcing, I'm afraid that you've just revealed your hand. That you see the likes of Peter Tatchell and Susan Stryker as essentially having sought to misrepresent Bindel; that you assume the NUS Women's Campaign to been have manipulated if they criticised her - don't you dare claim to not have a bias here. This certainly explains your belligerence up until this point.

Throughout this discussion, I've compromised where possible to work towards a neutral, verifiable, accurate article; as far as you're concerned, one side of this issue is bullshit and you won't stand for its inclusion. Thus we have a problem. Rebecca (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your bad faith assumption are the latest problem here and no, I admire both Tatchell and Stryker and I think you'll find even they would be against mudslinging and violating policies. If we have reliable sourcing we find the best ways to include the material. If we don't, leave it out, it's pretty simple. -- Banjeboi 16:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no cigar. You've made your views about Bindel's critics very clear here, and this isn't about sourcing; every single source put forward has been met with ever-greater rhetorical gymastics - right up to accusing a major feminist organisation of being manipulated, and a respected publication of copying press releases, both based on no evidence but your own bias. Neither have you shown the slightest interest in improving the sourcing on your own account. You've flat-out stated what you think of Bindel's critics above; trying to pass your POV pushing off as concern for sourcing simply will not fly. Rebecca (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. You're really seeing something that ins't there. I don't think I've stated anything about Bindel's critics except that I admire both Tatchell and Stryker. And if the sources hold up as reliable, fine. Personally I'm not convinced but it's obvious we need to address each one so we're all on the same page with which ones are reliable or not. -- Banjeboi 17:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You quite clearly stated above that you viewed this entire issue as a matter of people trying to misrepresent Bindel's views and "cherry-picking" her language. Since these concerns didn't originate with Zoe and I, but rather with the assorted cited critics, you're pretty clearly dismissive of their side of the issue as a whole. This certainly explains your ardent hostility to any anti-Bindel source, but it doesn't make for a useful contribution to the article. I'm happy to have a discussion about sourcing with any of the other pro-Bindel editors here, but your bias has been so zealous thusfar that I'm not really seeing the point if we're going to see more of what we've seen so far. Rebecca (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well at least I know now why you're mistaken on this. My criticism isn't with pro- or anti- Bindel people - even the protest groups have a right to their opinions - but with the editors who have injected POV and WP:Cherry-picked bits thus creating a WP:Coatrack for attacking Bindel. These concerns remain in the article and will be removed, one by one if needed. If there is criticism in relaible sources we present that neutrally and with due weight. These are all policies that IMHO are being violated by you and the Zoe's. That you attack me, to me, is a sign my concerns are spot-on. -- Banjeboi 18:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Cherry picking and a coatrack built from her own articles? That doesn't make sense. And if there is concern about the focus, then I feel the answer is to add more information about the rest of her work, rather than trying to remove what is already there. Mdwh (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi - hypothetically, lets say you end up rewriting the article, get a consensus on it the protection expires and you put it up. Then someone reverts it, claiming POV and RS issues without explaining why. After many days and many words are said they eventually take a few pieces to BLPN and RSN, which are a subset of their original complaint and only at that point do they finally explain their reasoning in full. They then seemingly use this to justify that none of your rewrite should stay in and that we should just go back to the original version but will not discuss the wording of the consensus rewrite you had at all - they just ignore conversations on the topic. Woudln't you get a little frustrated? That's what's happening here. You've taken the NUS piece to RSN and I do believe, now you've actually spelt it out, that you probably have a valid point about third party coverage. (There is third party coverage, but it's quite possibly not significant enough to warrant notability - I'll comment on RSN later) But it's the first time you've raised the issue of notability due to lack of third party sources, previously you've just said the document isn't credible or just that it's not notable without explanation and engaged in simply stating a contradiction without a counterargument to back it up. This is specifically covered in WP:DISCUSS and WP:DR. ~Excesses~ (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. I think we need to do both; remove content that violates policy and add content that's acceptable. I was in process of adding sourced content when the article was fully protected. When the edit-warring kicked in re-adding really POV language like "despite continuing disapproval of her views" (ugh) and sourcing to blogs, I looked at each of the sources to see what they did support and made changes to come up with the proposal above. One of the signs of coatracking is that we are alleging the greater LGBT community is at odds but those sources didn't support it. We also were criticising her and she addressed those criticisms in the very same source yet we don't let her words address those criticisms ... on her article. We also cherry-picked the bisexual statement yet that mischaracterized what she was saying. She might despise bisexual people but we need reliable sources that clearly defend that position. We also state that she continued to publish controversial articles and source it ... to her own article, that seems to be original research unless we're messing up WP:Attribution. In either case it has to be fixed. -- Banjeboi 07:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the intent of the original author was to imply that there was a backlash outside of just the trans community but the wording doesn't make that clear. "Wider LGBT" might be a better word than "greater" in this case. We would get further in this discussion if you would comment on such such suggestions as this to revise the original wording, rather than just rewriting the whole piece and dropping it in without consensus. ~Excesses~ (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have suggested lots of items about the main focus of Julie Bindel's work and writing, but so so far we have not managed to get past the discussion proposed by the admin who came here around what should be removed. So, just get back to what can stay and what cannot, deal with the wording, then move on. I have read the BLP page, and it is quite clear that things should be removed if questionable, and the veracity established before insertion. The page is parked with teh questionable material in place, and by stalling the process this ensures it remains in place and avoids the insertion of biographical material that needs to go in for it to be a genuine biography. If people are unwilling to engage with this process, then the page should simply be deleted until a set of editors whose main interest in the biography is not about showing what an awful person Bindel is can be found. Mish (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As I've said a number of times, I actually agree with a number of the things you've suggested, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of point continuing here when Benjiboi refuses to participate in any useful dialog and merely forum shops elsewhere until he finds a sympathetic admin to make edits for him. I'm open to compromise, but I think that's effectively impossible when one party has made it abundantly clear that he's not interested in anything apart from installing his POV in the article. It's the worst case of POV pushing I've seen since a troll we had in the Kerry-Bush wars back in 2004. Rebecca (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty uncivil and assumes bad faith again towards me. I'm now used to it here but that "forum shopping" was to go to the admin because Excesses (Zoe O'Connell) insisted material that violated policies wouldn't be removed without admin support. So I'm utilizing admin support as needed. There has been heated discussions with dozens of mischaracterizing me of unwilling to discuss yet here I am still, discussing, before and after every nonsensical assertion that I'm not. I took the NUS question to RSN because there seemed little doubt on how vociferously the arguing would be to keep it. So rather than making the same localized consensus mistake that happenned six months ago I asked at the Reliable Sources Noticebaord - you even stopped in to make some rather unfavouravble comments towards me. And that decision was unaminous to remove, which we just did despite your protest. The next phases will be a bit trickier because I feel we are misrepresenting sources by wp:Cherrypicking the bisexual quote thus misrepresenting Bindel's own words and suggesting a wider communities' disdain for her. I have never suggested we don't include negative infomation but it has to be done so NPOV including due weight. On another BLP I worked on we had categorized the person as anti-Catholic which is bad but untrue, in fact they were critical of the lack of response to the Catholic priests abusing children. I pointed out that misusing facts ike this does a disservice to everyone. It shows we are innacurate and not to be trusted, it slings mud at someone, it misrepresents history to our readers when they are better served knowing the facts and making thier own minds if they agree with ___ group says ____ is anti-Catholic and possibly worst of all it mitigates the real problem of people and groups that are actually anti-Catholic. It's in all our interests to have an article that is not just a titalating read but is actually true. -- Banjeboi 01:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. I think the recent changes since protection [1] have cleaned up the problematic issues with the existing text, and so I see no need to go with the various newer proposed versions. My only comment is that there is no need to remove the referenced information about the NUS; it's just that this shouldn't be conflated as being linked with publication of articles or the Stonewall nomination. Mdwh (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately

{{editprotected}}

Hi, this talkpage has stalled with acrimony and solid disagreement on the quality of sourcing. I opened a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and univolved editors came to a consensus the NUS sourcing and content were not sufficiently reliable and notable. That is, NUS certainly may have made the statements in these primary sources but lack of reliable sources that these votes were notable amkes this negative content innapropriate. No prejudice to re-adding the content if presented neutrally and with reliable sourcing.

If an admin could overview the discussion to ensure it measures up and please remove:

Despite continuing disapproval of her views from the transgender community and a vote of censure against her at the National Union of Students LGBT Campaign's 2008 Conference[13],

and

In 2009, her continued publication of controversial articles[18] led to a no-platform motion being passed against her by the NUS Women's Campaign.[19][20]

and the sources that were discussed from Julie Bindel#Reactions to Bindel's journalism I would appreciate it. -- Banjeboi 02:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

DoneI have commented out the sections as requested. The material has not been deleted, but it can no longer be viewed by the public. This will allow for restoration of the material once the discussion has reached a consensus to do so if desired. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"It's not me. It's you." - Bindel's follow-up piece to the protest

Currently we have

In her follow-up piece to the protest she stated she, as part of the "lesbian and gay" movement, did not want to be "lumped in" with transgender or bisexual people or others with "odd sexual habits"

This misrepresents her follow-up piece to the protest, and IMHO, WP:Cherrypicks quotes and places them out of context thus violating NPOV.

I'd like folks to re-read Bindel's piece to see if this doesn't come closer:

In Bindel's follow-up piece to the protest, "It's not me. It's you.", she expressed her opinion that the protest was as much about "Stonewall for refusing to add the T (for transsexual) on to the LGB (for lesbian, gay and bisexual)."^[1] She also stated that as a longtime active member of the lesbian community she felt uncomfortable with the increasing inclusion of sexuality and gender-variant communities into the expanding LGBT "rainbow alliance" - "the mantra now at 'gay' meetings is a tongue-twisting LGBTQQI."^[1]^[2] She also expressed frustration at being criticized for expressing opinions on trans issues while simultaneously being told to be inclusive to trans people and issues.^[1]

For expediency please limit comments to this content so we can see if there is any consensus or if not where there is any disagreement. -- Banjeboi 01:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said to Durova above, you're substituting your own words about what you think she meant for what Bindel actually said. The language she actually used is fundamentally relevant to attempting to summarise the article. You're extremely good at selectively picking out all the bits that didn't cause controversy to effectively suggest "well, what's anyone complaining about?" Rebecca (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not even object to the inclusion of a substantial part of your summary of her views there. However, your careful attempts to spin what Bindel actually said so as to make her critics look like idiots is emerging both as a serious NPOV violation and as a BLP violation against some prominent figures in the UK LGBT community. As I said to Durova above: if Bindel had actually said what you just said she said, the article wouldn't have raised an eyebrow. She did not, however - and trying to summarise the article while carefully ignoring mentioning any of the language she actually used ("odd sexual habits", "devil-worshippers", etc.) is a disgrace. Rebecca (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Bindel does not say anything specific about any individual group within LGBT(etc.), what she says is "I for one do not wish to be lumped in with an ever-increasing list of folk defined by "odd" sexual habits or characteristics." That is how it should read. Just because one believes she means bisexual and transgender people, if she has not said this then it is reflecting what is not there - synthesis, I believe you call it. To pull any group out of that list is not supportable - she is giving a list of people who have tended to be seen as having odd sexual habits, a list which includes gay and lesbian people, and thus includes people like herself in that list. She is saying is that she wants to be left out of that list, because she does not identify with most of the rest of the list. The text supports this, not what was written originally. She is not calling for exclusion of T or B from LGBT(etc), but herself "I just want to be left alone. I am not in your gang, I did not ask to be, so please don't tell me I am one of yours, and then tell me off for offending your orthodoxy." This can be supported from the text using her words in a substantive way, rather than selecting individual words and rearranging them to convey a different meaning. Mish (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with quoting what she said there; what I'm pushing for is for Benjiboi not to be selective about what he actually quotes, since anything that actually caused controversy tends to get expunged from his "summaries" of her articles. The article is about transsexual people; the trans community is referred to in every single paragraph, and no other group is mentioned besides the line about "cat fanciers", etc. That's what "odd sexual habits" clearly refers to in context; it's disingenuous for us to then take it out of that context. Rebecca (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

To me, that is the cherry-picking problem. Putting in the cast of Grease only serves to push an emotional button and doesn't help the rest of our readers understand why that's rather hurtful. Thus we should write dispassionately and let the soourcing explain this. Talking about her using inflamatory language/writing needs to be backed up by non-primary sources and shown if it applies to all her writing or just on this issue. -- Banjeboi 08:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca, could you explain what is the "serious NPOV violation and as a BLP violation against some prominent figures in the UK LGBT community"? I'm not using her words against anyone or any group so there doesn't seem to be any BLP issue with the proposed text. Stonewall UK is mentioned but this information presented NPOV, they remain "the lesbian, gay, bisexual charity" so we're back to do you think what I've writen above is accurate and conveys the meaning/spirit? Does it leave out or mischaracterize anything? If so, what? To me the main points were her frustration with "gays and lesbians" being simultaneous co-opted, for lack or better term, by sexuality and gender-variant communities and for being criticized for expressing her views on trans issues while being forced to embrace trans people and issues. This is actually rather standard lesbian separatism that allows working with gay men to build alliances but otherwise being self-sufficient and not being part of anything male-dominated or seen as patriarchal. Her statements on transgenderism from five years ago spoke to this - that people were being fooled in some way that they had to be one gender or the other (only two possible) to fit into a society set-up and ruled by men. Concurrent to that is the relatively common sentiment that lesbians do not want to socialize with bisexual men because of harassment/rape issues. That Bindel is an anti-rape campaigner it's hardly surprising that she would hold such a view. I don't see her comments as anti-trans and anti-bi communities and people as much as throwing up the gates against what she sees as patriarchal creep. We like;y could spell this out more clearly with her other writings if it would help. But the out of context phrase doesn't accurately reflect either her views or the source, it's an out of context quote that suggests an interest in stirring up sentiments against Bindel which has been atthe heart of this problem that whole time. That we are inflating items out of context and suggesting a larger backlash against her when those sources don't support it. Others might, but those do not. -- Banjeboi 15:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is where I become frustrated with trying to see this represented. She's the most internationally well-known transphobic writer in Britain, but as far as you're concerned, she's "not anti-trans", so that's what matters.

As I said above, I don't generally object, for the most part, to your summary of her views above, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your summary of her ideological perspective; indeed, if you can find sources for it, I think it could be a good addition to the article.

The problem I have here goes back to what I said before - it's "what you think she meant", not "what she actually said". Bindel is such a lightning rod for controversy precisely because she uses such inflammatory language. Your summaries have continually stripped all of this from the text, giving a starkly misrepresentative view of what she actually wrote. This seems intended to provoke a "what are they complaining about?" response in the reader (something which you evidently seem to hold too); in essence, it appears that you're trying to make some notable people - people that we have biographies on - look like idiots - by misrepresenting Bindel's words.

I also think you're being a little bit disingenous with sourcing. Bindel could have called for the mass murder of trans people and I doubt it would have raised an eyebrow in the London dailies; the main sources for these subjects are always going to be in the LGBT-related press. I've seen the standards of referencing you seem to find acceptable on other topics; the ridiculously (and unequally) high level of sourcing you're pushing here seems designed to specifically target any source other than Bindel's own columns. I'm not arguing for the use of poor sources, but I am arguing for a rather more rational approach than has been taken thusfar. This is something I would be interested in discussing further if you'll come to the table and come at it from "how can we cover this fairly from the available sources, inside and outside of the present draft" as opposed to "how can I eliminate any criticism of Bindel unless forced to acknowledge it". Rebecca (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to add one more thing. I agree that the text concerned isn't great as it stands; it documents the controversy, but it doesn't document her actual views very well. The problem is that your rewrites keep trying to take it to the other extreme, in carefully expunging anything she actually did say that was controversial, and that's why I'm continually getting frustrated here. Rebecca (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"the most internationally well-known transphobic writer in Britain" - this would notable if it can be sourced. And reliable sourcing controversial content on BLPs is non-negotiable, we have to do it. And I've never suggested we remove or whitewash criticism but that we have to handle it neutrally and with due weight. I have only advocated for covering this - and all - information fairly. My stance on this has not changed, we do not not compromise policies especially on a BLP. "[I]t appears that you're trying to make some notable people - people that we have biographies on - look like idiots - by misrepresenting Bindel's words." Umm, hardly. People will make themselves look foolish with or without my intervention. It's quite a stretch to suggest that because we don't draw and quarter Bindel as the transphobic tart she is here that Tachell or PFC, or any else is an idiot. That's simply non-sensical. We write accurately about Bindel's life and career and this article up til my overhauling, has been chiefly to send her to the pilory for her strong opinions which you and others disagree and position the "controversy" as much bigger and wider that it actually was and is. I have no doubt that many in some trans communities strongly disagree with her but I also have little doubt that many more, especially in the greater/larger/wider LGBT communities simply don't care. That is the nature of most LGBT issues, even the biggest issues find quite varying responses with the vast majority focussing on their own things. In all of this we need to lean on what relaible sources state and be careful injecting POV either for or against her. -- Banjeboi 08:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to reply to this, since you've misrepresented what I've actually said fairly obnoxiously, but I do not think it would serve actually coming to a workable solution here, so I'll let what I said below stand as a response. Rebecca (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll go with your statement, Benji, possibly reinforced with a substantive quote from the article that illustrates this (rather than a cut-chop-and-paste version). Your analysis is correct that hers is a fairly bog-standard radical lesbian feminist (RLF) perspective, and whether I agree with it or not that is what it is and need not be presented as being something different. Her biography is not the place to challenge those views, nor represent them as targeting one (or two) particular groups - the list is LGBTQQI. Mish (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is simply not true, and not borne out by the sources either. At an academic level, yes, Bindel's views are fairly bog-standard for her school of thought; where they differ is in the inflammatory expression of those views. Nothing I have ever supported including in this article attempts to "challenge those views"; what I have argued for is the inclusion of what she actually said and not a version of what you think someone of her school of thought might think, stripped of all the inflammatory things she actually did say. Rebecca (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not OR or POV to summarize what she is saying and although it can certainly be tweaked I think I've fairly summarized the salient points of her response to criticiam against her. An overview of all her writing on trans issues may help inform here as well as a look to what reliable sources state. -- Banjeboi 08:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It is, however, POV to summarise what she's saying in a biased manner. Someone reading your summary of Bindel's article and Bindel's actual article could be forgiven for thinking they were entirely different pieces, because while you try to distill her central points, you carefully avoid using the language she uses - especially where that language is at all controversial. Moreover, I'm a bit miffed as how you can claim to "fairly summarise the salient points of her response to criticism against her" when none of the actual criticism is mentioned in the article.

I don't even think we're necessarily that far apart. I think the draft you wrote above is, as a start at least, okay. However, it's this change from the extremely provocative language she uses in her articles into the polite academic language you represent her as using in the summary that I have a problem with. This isn't neutral, and it isn't borne out by the sources either. Rebecca (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hard to go through all the discussions, but can as just say as someoen who hasn't taken part in the debate yet that I strongly support the 2008 version and beleive it is vastly superior to the proposed version.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well obviously we'll have to agree to disagree, my goal remains to remove anything non-policy-compliant like the NUS platform votes that were recently removed. -- Banjeboi 08:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree to disagree; if the NUS cannot bother to spell a person's name correctly, it makes me wonder how serious it was, or whether it is even valid if nobody subsequently took action to change it. Whether her views are academic or activist or dyke-bar views is irrelevant, it is what was said that should be reflected, not one party's false belief that what is said is all about them. Mish (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering that I have persistently been arguing for the inclusion of Bindel's own words as they were actually written, as well as what was actually said by her critics, please cease making these accusations. Rebecca (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

True, you have in one context (the 2004 piece), but in this context you want to rearrange them and give them a meaning that is not there. Mish (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you want to carefully imply a meaning that isn't there. Nonetheless, I have no particular attachment to that particular quote being mentioned; as long as the issue is treated fairly in the end, I will be fine with it. Rebecca (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

that is my intention (to be fair to the subject and to those written about) Mish (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As I say above, if you feel there is a problem with cherry picking, then it is fine to add more content to give the fair context. However, by removing that material (which is sourced from her own words), then you are engaging in cherry picking. Why hide what she says? When you write "inclusion of sexuality and gender-variant communities", let's be clear what she meant by that: transgender or bisexual people or others with "odd sexual habits. By removing that information, the reader has no idea what communities she meant. There is also no "expanding" LGBT - that is her assertion, so we should be careful to word it as such. The last sentence implies that the criticism she received is factual, when that is a matter of opinion - it seems to be setting up a straw man. And as I've said before, whilst I don't mind it being mentioned elsewhere "a longtime active member of the lesbian community", this should not be here in an attempt to add weight to her POV - unless we also say that many of the transgendered people who criticise her are also longtime active members of the lesbian community. Given that her whole argument is the assertion that lesbians have always been members of a community, and transgendered people are trying to get in, this is a serious POV issue. In summary, I see no problems with the original statement, and the new wording introduces cherry picking and POV issues. Mdwh (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Benji said something pertinent a little higher up the page which I wanted to respond to without it getting lost, since it pertains to the heart of the current problem:

To me, that is the cherry-picking problem. Putting in the cast of Grease only serves to push an emotional button and doesn't help the rest of our readers understand why that's rather hurtful. Thus we should write dispassionately and let the soourcing explain this. Talking about her using inflamatory language/writing needs to be backed up by non-primary sources and shown if it applies to all her writing or just on this issue. -- Banjeboi 08:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to talk about her use of inflammatory language in the abstract, but I do want what she says to be included as she wrote it. This means that we don't strip out her inflammatory language when we summarise the article on the basis you think it "pushes an emotional button". This is precisely the point of why Bindel causes such controversy - she does push "emotional buttons". If you strip out these elements of what she actually said, you're no longer summarising what she said - you're attempting to represent her in the best light you can. And that isn't neutral in the least. On the other hand, merge your draft above with the language she actually used, and you've just about got yourself an agreement. Rebecca (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with that, but if her words were so appalling, I'm not sure repeating them is a good idea. I wouldn't quote Enoch Powell or Ian Paisley or Martin McGuiness's, for example, just to demonstrate how awful they are. Is it normal to restate such language after it has been apologised for when people agree it was in poor taste? Mish (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even going to deign that with a response, apart from to say that I'm glad that you do not have an issue with it. Rebecca (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If one doesn't repeat her words, then one has to somehow convey the meaning or tone of those words, which just causes other issues trying to agree the wording. I guess we have to restrict ourselves to the parts cited in the sources as the ones causing trouble - I'm not sure any of the bits quoted at length by Mayes are much better than the Grease comment, in fact I would say they're worse but the Grease comment gets more "airtime" because it's shorter and punchier. As for the second article, there's no source stating that there was any reaction to the "tongue twisting" comment so I don't see how that could be included in a "reactions" section. ~Excesses~ (talk) 10:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have traced the letter to the Guardian by the Hayley actress in Corrie - that gives a pretty good, impartial, summation of the language as it was received at the time. It is probably more relevant than what any of us can say about it with five years of hindsight. Provided others agree, then this could be included when we get to the point of making a new edit in the future.

  Men in dresses with birds'-nest hair chopping off their meat and two veg in order to enjoy the privileges of using the women's bog or snogging their same sex partner without fear of ridicule?!
  Can someone please inform the intelligent and compassionate Julie Bindel, whose amazing work for Justice for Women I have long admired, 
  that Les Battersby is using her name to masquerade as a Sun reporter? And that the Guardian is accidentally printing his column?
  Julie Hesmondhalgh

Although the Les Battersby and the Sun references might be oblique to anybody not living in the UK nor having watched Coronation Street in the past ten years. My recollection at the time was the incredulity that the Guardian was publishing something that would fit in more with the sort of rhetoric of the Mail, Express or Sun. No doubt had this been written by a straight man in the Daily Mail, there would not have been such a feeling of betrayal. That was the point. It wasn't, it was was written by a lesbian feminist in a liberal newspaper. This is why I say that the context is important.

Similarly, the reaction to Bindel's resumption of her focus on trans issues has to be seen in the context of what else was happening - if only mentioned, to avoid turning this into an analysis. What else happened when Bindel wrote her first piece? The Guardian's David Batty launched his own campaign to 'expose' Russell Reid who treated Claudia from Bindel's 2003 Telegraph piece. This kicked off at about the same time as Bindel's 2004 piece, in early 2004, resuming again in 2006 and on into 2007, Batty produced 21 pieces on Reid, interviewed members of the ChX team, and on transsexualism, and appeared to be biased against Reid. The sense was that the paper itself was out to get Reid and undermine transsexuals. That sequence of events ended in 2007, and then Bindel pops up writing about trans again after a three year silence, this time choosing her words carefully. That is the context, and it is within the context that the reaction that eventually followed makes sense. Apart from being a critic of reassignment, Bindel didn't say much substantively offensive at all after 2004, she took the flack for Batty's crusade against Reid basically - because he used the Guardian in a way that made sure Reid would never work with transsexuals again whatever the GMC said (many outside ChX itself, patients and professionals, liked Reid a lot because he was a compassionate, if naive, man who treated up to half the transsexuals in the UK). OK, so all that cannot go in - but something has to go in to make sense of why there was such a strong reaction between 2008/9 after Julie had picked up from where Batty left off - beyond what was said in the 2004 artcle. Simply mentioning (with references) that there were 21 articles by Batty in three years on this issue between her first and next piece for the Guardian, should help cover it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MishMich (talk • contribs) 13:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good find - just for others and in case you didn't have the link and were working from paper copies, a very quick google on the wording you quoted gives this URL. I hadn't considered the Batty angle myself and I have no idea how much it influenced the backlash but it's a good point that should probably be included. Careful wording is needed I think otherwise we might portray Bindel as part of some Guardian-lead anti-Trans conspiracy. (I don't believe for one moment any such conspiracy exists) I doubt Batty had any real effect on Reid being able to work again - he's said himself it's pretty much impossible to get private practice insurance if you have a GMC hearing against you and he'd already retired from most gender work anyway. ~Excesses~ (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finding this, MishMich. I'm not sure how it would be possible to approach the Batty articles without running into WP:SYNTH, unless there's some coverage somewhere of the paper's issues, specifically mentioning both of them. Rebecca (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Lesbian separatism

There's no mention of the issue of "lesbian separatism", and Bindel arguing against heterosexual feminism.[2][3][4] She's also been criticised for being anti-children[5], after this article:[6]. Fences and windows (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Jan Guardian article has been noted, although she doesn't use the term 'lesbian separatism'.

The sick of kids in the holidays one - didn't get many comments.

Mish (talk) 08:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The January Guardian article isn't in the article yet. The "sick of kids" one did get a reply in the Guardian, I don't see what the number of comments has to do with anything. Fences and windows (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's because we haven't reached the point of putting things in again yet - discussion stalled because people didn't like things coming out that couldn't be in there. See below about how to decide what is in or out. Mish (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Pics of Bindel fans and Stonewall demo

Found on Flickr, we can use them if people agree: http://www.flickr.com/photos/blahflowers/3009379719/ shows a "Julie Bindel Fan Club" banner and here's the rest of the photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/blahflowers/tags/juliebindel/. All CC Attrib-Share Alike 2.0. Fences and windows (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)