This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to request that the third paragraph under 'Views' (In September 2020, during the extradition trial of Julian Assange, Freeman responded to a general question about politics by chastising Assange's partner for expressing concerns that such an extradition would prevent her two children from being able to see their father.[29]) be deleted or rewritten with a neutral point of view. I have a rough suggestion for a neutral pov below:
In September 2020, Freeman responded to an interview in the Sunday Times with Julian Assange's partner Stella Morris in which Morris expressed concern that extradition of Assange would separate him from their children with "...one struggles not to reply: “Yes, that’s incredibly sad for your children. But it is also not an ENTIRELY unforeseen turn of events, given you conceived them with a man avoiding extradition to Sweden to face one allegation of sexual assault and another of rape.”[29] 119.18.1.158 (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has deleted the text: She objects to what she says is the hypocrisy of groups like LGBTQ+ activists who would be persecuted in Gaza. On the other hand, Freeman recognizes that many Jews have spoken out about the cruelty towards Palestinians, West Bank settlements, and far-Right fundamentalism. with the edit summary: She obviously has many views. Use WP:IS to indicate which are important enough to mention. Summarize those briefly and proportionate to those sources. which does not give a justification for deleting that particular text. I do not see any justification for the deletion, and I think this text should be reinstated, as it is relevant to her views on Gaza. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I (naturally) agree that that passage should be restored to reflect her arguments about LGBTQ+ activists and Hamas (which are widely shared) in that essay. Further, the tag {{primary-inline}} seems unnecessary when quoting her. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a journalist and pundit, she has written about many, many more views than can be included in this article. The norm on Wikipedia is to use reliable, WP:IS to decide which views belong and which do not. To arbitrarily highlight one opinion based only on a primary source is a form of editorializing. In effect, you are choosing which opinions are encyclopedically important based on your own opinions. Adding details about this one opinion article is another form of subtle editorializing, as it is implying a level of importance that is not supported by sources. If her arguments are "widely shared" than it should be possible to cite a reliable source which discusses them. Otherwise, this is irrelevant and is also using Wikipedia to promote these views by sharing them even more without any context. Grayfell (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her essay was covered in several newspapers and podcasts, although, given its target, not so much in left-leaning publications. The article LGBT rights in the State of Palestine highlights some of the problems about the status of LGBTQIA+ people in Gaza, as does Amnesty Internationalhere, the Human Dignity Trusthere, as well as many pundits, again not from the left. I don't see how coverage of this important, and divisive, subject should be omitted from a section named "Views". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources cover Freeman's essay, why haven't your cited those sources?
This article is not about the topic of LGBT rights in the State of Palestine. Neither the Amnesty International source nor the Human Dignity Trust source mention Hadley Freeman. I am not saying the topic itself isn't notable, I am saying that we need to summarize this proportionately to this biography of a journalist and pundit. To put it another way, just because the larger topic is notable that doesn't also mean that every individual example of an opinion on that topic must also be worth mentioning.
As I said, she has produced many opinions on notable topics. We cannot include them all, so we need to use reliable, independent sources to summarize those which are important to understanding Hadley Freeman as a topic. The current wording is not proportionate, nor entirely neutral. The way to fix this starts with WP:IS. Grayfell (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there has been no response and no attempt to cite reliable independent sources I have reverted to the more succinct wording and restored the primary-inline templates.
Again, vaguely citing newspapers and podcasts is not sufficient for this. Our goal is to provide readers with context based on reliable, independent sources. Our goal is not to provide individually-selected highlights based on our own reading of primary sources. Grayfell (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 