Talk:Julie Bindel/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Current situation

OK, discussion seems to be stalling. The main outstanding issue with the existing content seems to be removing or keeping the Livejournal link as discussed in the above section. There have only been three people contributing to that discussion, including myself and I think we're probably OK to remove the link. Does anyone believe we have any more outstanding issues with the existing content? There seems to be a broad consensus on the fact that more material would be nice if someone wants to write it. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to both your on-page and off-page requests in the relevant location above. Mish (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is stalling only because your stonewalling on following policies. I'm convinced this article will improve despite spurious claims and the unique style of avoiding policy concerns are circular arguing abut everything else. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, not a battleground and not a blog. We will follow policies here including BLP, RS and Undue, NPOV and Verifiability even if we have to take each source for it's own judgement. Sadly that seems what we must do. The edit-warring to remove a citation requested tag must also stop. -- Banjeboi 21:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian didn't apologize

Another innacuracy with the old version is that The Guardian didn't apologize; they explained the issues and generally upheld her rights to express her opinions. This is part of the POV writing that needs to be corrected to accurately reflect what the sources stated - or in this case - don't. -- Banjeboi 22:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm out at the moment so this is just a quick post but I was reminded of the G3 publication by something said IRL earlier today - there's a copy online here and page 98 has a piece by Bindel - she describes the Guardian as having apologised. ~Excesses~ (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

New start

Now that the article's protected, how about trying to go systematically through issues. (a) things deleted that people want to bring back. (b) things currently in that should come out (c) things that need rewriting. Under C I'd nominate

"Bindel's follow-up piece to the protest in the Guardian newspaper[17] caused even more widespread discomfort[18] [19], when 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"."

since this is vaguely misleading and not very well-sourced (the blog has to go and the relative widespreadness of the "discomfort" isn't demonstrated). How about: "Bindel's follow-up piece to the protest in the Guardian newspaper[17] caused more discomfort[18] when she wrote that rather than the present "unholy alliance" in which lesbians are "lumped in with an ever-increasing list of folk defined by 'odd' sexual habits or characteristics," she would prefer to return to the situation of the 1970s and 80s, when "lesbians were left to our own devices".[17]" ... I think that better represents her intended meaning. Also,

"In 2009, her continued publication of controversial articles[20] led to a no-platform motion being passed against her by the NUS Women's Campaign.[21][22]"

is WP:SYNTH - no evidence that further publications in 2009 had any causal impact on the motion, or that any were "controversial". Also the third link ([22]) doesn't provide any relevant information. Rd232 ^talk 00:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, as per discussion above I believe the Bialogue reference (19) should go and I'm happy for "widespread" to be deleted - perhaps "discomfort" could be replaced with something else too, but I'm not certain of the right wording. It wasn't just the lumping in that caused the discomfort however, it was the specific association of transsexual and bisexual people with "odd sexual habits". ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• 22 indicates the motion pased - both are needed as one says what the motion was, the other states that the motion passed. I take your point about the way the sentence is phrased, it does seem to state that it was 2009 articles that led to the resolution being proposed which wasn't as far as I'm aware the case. It would perhaps better read "Her continued publication of controversial articles lead, in 2009, to a no-platform motion being passed against her by the NUS Women's Campaign.[21][22]. I'm not certain [20] is needed at all, although it's comments in reply rather than the article itself that are relevant - if it's kept, this would need to be made clearer. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

@rd232 'distress' might be better than 'discomfort'; the way you have put it seems more representative to me. Mish (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

All from the section currently titled "Reactions to Bindel's journalism"

Per request this list is for admins to consider if policy is being compromised to make immediate changes. Please keep discussion in relevant section or start a new thread.

I'll address the most problematic concerns while avoiding what i feel should be added instead. My proposed text is part of the RfC above and mainly inserts Bindel's opinions and reactions to the criticism all from reliable sources.

• Section should likely be renamed from "Reactions to Bindel's journalism" to "Reactions to Bindel's veiws on transgenderism" - accurately reflect reliable sources and content as opposed to inflating about anything else.
• and greater LGBT communities should be removed - it inflates the issue(s) beyond what the sources support
• that compared transexuals to "the cast of Grease" should be corrected to that cast transexual people as ungenuinely transitioning and ridiculing their experiences - which more accurately reflects the source
• resulted in an apology from the newspaper and from Bindel herself for the "tone" of the article should be corrected to resulted in an explanation from the newspaper and apology from Bindel for the poor tone used. - Per the sources (the paper didn't apologize but Bindel later did).
• Hecklers debate to propose that "sex change surgery is unnecessary mutilation" should be corrected to "Hecklers", a series in which someone argues a provocative thesis, to postulate that "sex change surgery is unnecessary mutilation" - accurately convey context and source.
• 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], should be removed - for POV; The student union platform votes needs to be considered if it's actually reliable and notable. It would seem any interest group may be able to insert and get approved a position vote so questionable if this is notable.
• caused even more widespread discomfort - remove as POV
• when 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". should be corrected to she 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." - this is her explanation not a wp:Cherry POV quote to mischaracterize her opinion
• In 2009, her continued publication of controversial articles[20] led to a no-platform motion being passed against her by the NUS Women's Campaign. - remove unless NUS votes are seen as credible and notable.

Sources that should go:

• Boynton, Petra (2008-10-21), Stonewall Awards nominee causes LGBT split
• Trans gender demo at Stonewall awards, 2008-11-09
• "lesbian columnist Julie Bindel wants bisexual and transsexual people out of "her" movement", bialogue, 2008-11-08

And the three NUS student links until their credibility and notability is confirmed. -- Banjeboi 03:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin questions/comments

This section is solely for admins to clarify content issues with Banjeboi

Other editor's questions/comments

• Looks to me that all of this fairly applies per WP:BLP. If any of it gets better sourcing/notability established this list would be equally useful for discussion and reinsertion later. Durova^Charge! 03:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No prejudice against reliably sourced content as long as it's kept NPOV with ,due weight. When I started this was more than half the article, now it's a third. She's been an activist for thrity years so one row on one subject likely shouldn't dominate quite like this. -- Banjeboi 03:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    • This is extremely disingenous. I have stated several times on this page that I have no objection to the expansion of the material on her activist career, and that indeed, there was quite a bit that was missing. You have not been concerned with the length of the section about her; you have been concerned with stripping anything but a pro-Bindel perspective from the article, up to and including substituting your own words for hers, and attempting to remove verifiable sources when they contradict with your own opinion. Rebecca (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    • She's only been a columnist for the Guardian for about 8 years, regularly for less than that, and she's only been nominated for awards and doing research for government bodies in the last 12-24 months. Her profile has increased steadily over the last few years and what she says gets more notice - hence, it gets more reactions. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Please verify the claims being made here yourself - there are statements that certain things are not supported by citations, when that's clearly the case. Much of what is being proposed is simply removing direct quotes from the subject that provoked a reaction and replacing them with others that caused less or no upset at the time - that isn't appropriate for a section on reactions to someone's journalism. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, you are in no sense a neutral editor of this article, and I wish you would stop claiming to be such. Every single edit you have made to this article has been concerned with slanting it in a pro-Bindel direction, and you have not shown the slightest interest in either accurately covering the topic, accurately representing the available sources, or doing anyting but attempting to present Bindel in the best light you possibly can.

..."and greater LGBT communities" should not be removed. There clearly was a backlash from within the broader LGBT community: that she was very strongly criticised by significant figures in the UK LGBT community is evident: Peter Tatchell is an obvious example, and that's just from the most basic Google search. It needs specific cites as to who, but it's unsurprising that rather than advocate this, you want the facts expunged.

The comparison to the cast of Grease is a direct quote. Rather than including what she actually said, you want to paraphrase it in a manner designed to present Bindel in the best light possible, and using language she did not herself use. A similar effort appears in the writing of the section on the newspaper's response to the comments; while 'apology' is not a proper description of what they actually said, 'explanation' is just as far away; that the paper specifically acknowledged that the complaints they had received were not limited to the trans community seems pertinent considering your attempts to eliminate any reference to non-trans criticism of Bindel. I have no issue with your suggested new sentence concerning the Hecklers debate; it uses better grammar than what is there anyway.

Bindel was no-platformed by a significant feminist organisation in Britain over this controversy, and referenced here as such. This is clearly notable. Your only basis for this is your own claim that "any interest group" could "insert" such a thing - do you have the slightest bit of evidence for this claim? The suggested rewrite of the "leave me alone" paragraph again displays similar efforts. Direct quotes of what she actually said are removed, and replaced with an original-research, whitewashed attempt to make her look far more polite. Rebecca (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Section should likely be renamed from "Reactions to Bindel's journalism" to "Reactions to Bindel's veiws on transgenderism"" - there are parts of the section that relate to the response from the bisexual community.
• that compared transexuals to "the cast of Grease" should be corrected - this is the exact section that caused the upset and the very article itself is already quoted in citation 11. There is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that any reasonable person could doubt that this was what she said and replacing something that caused upset with something that didn't in an section referring to reactions to her journalism is just bizarre.
• when 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". should be corrected - again, this is the section that caused upset. The bit that you intend to replace it with was less controversial.
• resulted in an apology from the newspaper and from Bindel herself for the "tone" of the article should be corrected to resulted in an explanation from the newspaper and apology from Bindel for the poor tone used. - I've never seen anyone try to claim the Guardian didn't apologise before, but the wording could be altered slightly. "Explanation" does not, however, cover the nature of the newspapers response.
• Multiple mentions of the NUS - this is a huge union of 5 million students and you're casting doubt on the credibility of documents published on their own website too?
• caused even more widespread discomfort - remove as POV - this has been discussed above. "caused even more distress" seems to be the consensus so far, not complete removal.
• Boynton, Petra (2008-10-21), Stonewall Awards nominee causes LGBT split - this one is mentioned by Julie herself, but could just as easily be replaced with her own take on the situation - it's just a citation to show her nomination. There's also this (Half way down, "Julie Bindel rejects 'transphobic' accusation", it's quite a big page and slow to load though) and others if one looks.
• Trans gender demo at Stonewall awards, 2008-11-09 - Plenty of other coverage of it - I don't know the specific criteria by which you think this should be removed but there's more here, here here, here, here and here. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • • • This has nothing to do with how much/little we cover her other career focii - the issue is we're slathering her with clumps of mud against our policies. The only sources I want removed are the unreliable ones - per policy. As for her opinions and answers to criticism, yes they should be included, that's NPOV policy. If reliable sources support what you want added then we simply need to look at WP:Undue, also per NPOV, to ensure we're presnting content accurately and with due weight. All this "controversial" material seems to be tied to trans issues - and sorry if you think I don't love me some some trans organizers as I've probably worked with more than you could imagine - reliable sourcing is key here to what happenned at the protest and anywhere else. Luckily Pinknews has a great article with quotes from Bindel herself answering the very criticism being lobbed at her here, and yet there is opposion to letting the accused make her own case. And my neutrality, I had never heard of Bindel until a few days ago, I refuse to reference blogs for information in a case like this so my knowledge is limited only to reliable sourcing which disallows London Feminist Network, Pinke.biz, Eurotrib.com, Homovision.tv et al, that these are even suggested as sources after this level of concern is ... alarming. Divamag.co.uk's page seems more a regurgitation of press releases than actual news editing or reporting. It would surprise me not a bit to find the exact quotes in a press release about the protest. I'd rather stick with reliable sources after the event than anything else. These other concerns are simply shades of POV, same as on the Stonewall UK article which I had to also rewrite where members "caused a storm of protest". Please, even if you get away with that for a month it will be corrected no matter how many reverts you do. You all seem to suspect that I have have some love or admiration for Bindel - I don't, I know Susan Stryker and admire her, but Bndel, never heard of her. This is about good editing on an encyclopedia. This is not a blog where we can pin a Hitler mustache on someone we hate and take potshots. You are not served well by mischaracterizing her published statements and finding dubious sources that also despise her words. If she is wrong, despised and otherwise evil then reliable sources will make that clear. If they don't then the issues are considered not that notable right now. This doesn't mean your concerns aren't valid or that she's not evil; it means we follow policies to protect everyone, not just the ones you like - verifiability not truth. It also means we don't print rubbish until reliable sources do as we don't lead, we follow. If I were your average homophobe or transphobic wanker you may have had had a chance but those accusations simply bead off my waterproof mascara. Sorry, we have to follow policy here and I will support the same for any other BLP, Bindel or not, transphobic blowhard or not. The same rules apply to all. -- Banjeboi 10:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
        • If you would like to work with the rest of us here on actually resolving the issues with the article; improving the text and the sourcing, and working towards something we can all agree on, then that would be lovely. The beligerent stance you have taken on the talk page, and the extreme one-sided nature of your attempts at rewrites, however, have been akin to something I'd expect from a press agent for Bindel, and not a serious editor. It would be nice if you would decide to behave more like the former in future. Rebecca (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Frankly, I'm seeing a lot of arguing and avoiding the pertinent issues of removing POV and sourcing that violates policies while simultaneously being bullied by those intent on using this biography as a soapbox to disparage the subject. That myself and other editors who never heard of Bindel share these concerns are met with vociferous assurances they are plenty more sources - none yet reliable - and objections to letting Bindel's own words defend against the criticism so readily heaped her way indicate a very negative POV-pushing agenda is at play. That discussion keeps veering away from these serious issues and incorrectly deflecting to individual editors further enforces that these concerns are valid and require intervention. Do I wish to collaborate to insert content that violates policies? I think that question speaks for itself. Anyone who has asked a reasonably brief question has been answered. Every question posed to me, even multiple times, has also been addressed, I even went through aprovided a list, in order, of what need to change and why. That I am defensive is only because I feel I was attacked, met with sarcasm and edit-warring against policy, bullied, told to get and admin or stop editing here, etc. The "extreme nature of my editing" is to remove material that violates BLP policies. I see no reason all editors should not also be doing the same. We need to start by pulling the POV out and remove the sources that aren't reliable. Remove items that aren't supported by reliable sources and you get much closer to what I had proposed. I then added Bindel's own opinions and words to address the criticisms levelled at her. Sorry if that feels too supportive of her but the material does belong on a BLP. -- Banjeboi 01:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
            • You'll need to be more specific about your issues with the sources as a generalisation that they're all blogs or, in the case of Divamag flawed in some non-specific way won't progress the discussion and we'll just go round in circle. The London Feminist Network is Bindel's own statement and allowed as a reliable source as per WP:BLP, PinkE is most definitely not a blog and neither is Homovision.tv (You could argue that they're not a reliable news source perhaps), the suggestions that Diva isn't reliable spurious at best and you we still have Accenture and Lesbilicious as being OK. (I'll need to check the European Tribune's publishing policy - I had thought they were more of a news site, but I might be mistaken there) The point behind WP:BLP is to remove contentious material that's poorly sourced but the existence and details of protest that the article's subject herself has commented on is not contentious. ~Excesses~ (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
              • I have specifically addressed these sources but Wikipedia:Blogs as sources presents the same information with links to to the relevant policies. In eessence blogs that are not written by Bindel herself should almost never be used on her biography. If we need to cite her own words then we need more reliable sources than blogs. Please also note that all blogs are not discounted but as of yet most are. On any BLP our sourcing should be stellar when adding negative, disparaging content and criticism. We cannot compromise on this. -- Banjeboi 15:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
                • More specific detail is needed - at least on first examination, these sources are not blogs. If some of them should be classified as blogs then that needs to be discussed, but it can't be discussed if it's not explicitly stated which ones and why they might be blogs. ~Excesses~ (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a problem with Diva? It is the only lesbian magazine available from high street newsagents, published by Millivres (http://www.millivres.co.uk/), who also publish Gay News (also available at W.H.Smiths), and the Pink Paper (which can be picked up free at any gay or dyke bar in London - at least, all the ones I've been to). Mish (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the page linked is that it has every appearance of being more regurgitated press release than actual news items that they produced and fact-checked, etc. If they did a stand-alone and attributed piece I would certainly have more confidence in it but this does not pass any duck test for a reliability. On a BLP we should be more conservative and use sources we don't doubt. Generally if the issue/content is notable enough a relaible source will cover it. -- Banjeboi 15:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oooooh. I understand. Mish (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is pure speculation on your part - the quotes from Summerskill and Bindel appear to have been sourced by Diva. ~Excesses~ (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Diva is an indisputably reputable source - so you claim you just don't like the look of the article. You've already shown your hand, Benjiboi. Rebecca (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca, please stop. Disparaging comments like this certainly aren't constructive and are unneeded. We obviously will need to go through each source to ensure its use here is acceptable. I suggest we try to do so methodicly and remove the ones that no one thinks are reliable first then work our way up the chain so we're left with only reliable sources to work with. -- Banjeboi 16:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This might sound like a reasonable request coming from any other editor, but considering your stated dismissal of Bindel's critics below, and your rather transparent attempt at taking out this source, despite it being from an indisputably reliable source, forgive me if this sounds rather disingenuous. You've shown no sign so far that you're interested in a neutral, verifiable and accurate article; only that you believe one side of the issue to be bullshit and want it gone. If at any point in the future you would like to actually come to the table and work with the rest of us to come to a suitable agreement - and drop the querulous attempts at getting rid of indisputable sources such as this - then feel free. Rebecca (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

My interest here has been and remains adhering to policies. Despite numerous personal attacks and mischaracterizing my efforts I remain and I find your continued accusations unwarranted and unwelcome. If you feel I have done anything wrong please enlist an admin to review my efforts. I welcome the opportunity to compare and contrast our editing here. -- Banjeboi 18:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• "and greater LGBT communities should be removed" - I have no objection to removing "greater". However, if there's going to be a dispute as to where the controversy is from, then I would suggest simply saying "has caused controversy" (we already state that the controversy is about transgender issues).
• "that compared transexuals to "the cast of Grease" should be corrected to that cast transexual people as ungenuinely transitioning and ridiculing their experiences" - How about: "she stated that a world inhabited by transsexuals would look like the set of Grease"? That's what she stated, word for word (or quote her directly if you prefer). I fail to see how referring this is inaccurate, when it's her own words.
• "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" - you can remove the "Despite continuing disapproval of her views from the transgender community", but the NUS censure should still be mentioned at some point in the article.

There's a discussion on the NUS bit here - unless I'm misunderstanding the Wikipedia use of the term "credible", it seems odd to attack the NUS source as not credible given it's on their own website. However, one could certainly make an argument that it's not notable. It had had third party press coverage however - the Lesbilicious piece mentions it. I guess the question is, does that constitute enough notability for it to be referenced? ~Excesses~ (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Re: "odd sexual habits" - again, clearly sourced for her own words. I have no objection to adding more information about her argument if you want, but it's removing this information that amounts to WP:CHERRY. The response to fact-picking is to add more facts to balance it, not to take part in fact-picking yourself. Furthermore WP:CHERRY refers to only picking facts from one side of the argument - I fail to see how it can be possible to cherry pick from her own words. None of the information in WP:CHERRY refers to using a person's words as a source for their own viewpoint. Are you suggesting that her own words are biased against her own viewpoint?
• "In 2009, her continued publication of controversial articles[20] led to a no-platform motion being passed against her by the NUS Women's Campaign." - source seems reliable. Notability only applies to articles, not to everything mentioned in an article.
• Re: sources: I'm fine with dropping the non-notable LiveJournal entry, but I see no problem with other sources.
• More generally, I still fail to see how there can be BLP issues when it comes to the author's own words from their own arguments. We might have concerns about what anyone else says about her, but not what she herself says about her. Mdwh (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

First things first

One of the pleasant things about Wikipedia is that there is no deadline and the article is never finished. WP:BLP requires us to proceed conservatively. It is feasible to discuss these matters one at a time, and readd information as the consensus agrees that proposed text is reliably and fairly represents the source material. It is not, however, viable to front load the discussion and demand that a large amount of probable BLP violations remain in the article until each gets altered or removed upon consensus. This is my third iteration of this important point (the other two being at a prior thread on this page and on an admin board). Please let's move forward productively and collaboratively. Durova^Charge! 05:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Where are the probable POV violations? Spurious arguments of BLP are being used here to basically argue that Wikipedia's NPOV policies no longer apply, and I have seen zero attempt at consensus from Benjiboi: we went from an extremely pro-Bindel version to an even more extremely pro-Bindel version, despite detailed explanations of why this was inappropriate. Rebecca (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding my aims - there is and has long been consensus on the content of the article and many editors have been trying to get discussion going to correct any remaining issues. This has been ignored by Benjiboi, despite attempts to engage in discussion of specific points here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here etc. (Many others by other editors too, I just picked out the early ones) This has generally been met with vague claims - so far, we've had claims of Coatrack, BLP, RS, POV, sockpuppetry and whatever else I've lost track of and the apparent ultimate aim is just to push their rewrite of the article through without any consensus and discussion. As a result of the administrator intervention they've finally been forced to fully list their concerns fully, which are now being pushed through as valid concerns without any discussion whatsoever - but even casual scrutiny reveals problems, such as replacing the specific wording that caused the reactions in the first place with other sections of the articles that did not invoke such a strong reaction, (A clear POV issue in itself) in order to make the reactions seem less justified and trying to cast doubt on the credibility of official motion documents published on the website of the organisation that voted on it. If we just remove stuff now there will never be a consensus to replace it, because Benjiboi will keep making noises every time a consensus is reached that they don't agree with. Collaboration is desperately needed but it's not happening now - despite the good efforts of a large number of editors.~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above post, Benji has repeatedly claimed that violation of wikipedia policies but repeatedly fails to explain why and just reverts the article. ZoeL (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(cross pasting from Rebecca's user talk) Rebecca, you're an old hand here. And Julie Bindel is someone I'd never heard of before today. Regardless of whether one agrees with her opinions or despises them, though, it really looks to my eye that there's a serious BLP problem at that article. Take, for example, citation 12. It leads neither to an actual recording nor to a transcript, yet the citation attempts to support a statement in quotation marks. That leaves no means of verifying whether or not Ms. Bindel actually did make that assertion word for word. A final version of the accompanying text for Citation 11 probably ought to be somewhere in between Banjeboi's proposal and the current article text, yet at least Banjeboi's proposal is unambiguously within BLP: the current version looks like cherry picking. The full context--while certainly controversial--is more nuanced than a simple act of name-calling, which is what the page currently implies. Have I missed something? If so, please enlighten. Durova^Charge! 05:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the BBC pulled the audio, presumably because of age. However, there's another version here - citation needs to be updated, you're actually the first person to spot it's gone. Sadly, the full context isn't much more nuanced than people objecting to name calling by Julie Bindel in nationally published articles - the "would look like the set of Grease" comment in 2004 that she apologised for the tone of and the "bisexuals... and others with odd sexual practices" comment more recently. A browse through the citations and other links I can provide if you like (Many didn't make it into the article just because of the number of them) should confirm this for you. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Expanding upon that: the About page at Indymedia.uk makes no indication of a vetting or editorial process that would satisfy WP:RS. Quite the opposite: Independent DIY media projects are spreading around the planet at unprecedented speed. Triggered by discontent with the mainstream media and supported by the widespread availability of media technologies, groups all over the world are creating their own channels of information and distribution in order to bypass the (mainstream) corporate media. The idea behind most of these projects is to create open platforms to which everyone can contribute - not only a small media elite with their particular interests.[1] And the fact that Bialogue is notable enough for a Wikipedia article is irrelevant to whether the organization's blog is reliable: The National Enquirer has a Wikipedia article too, yet none of us would quote it. If I'm missing something here, please clarify. Petra Boynton appears to be a recognized expert, and probably is sufficiently respected within her field to cite from her blog--but that doesn't normalize the rest of these irregularities. Durova^Charge! 06:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation 13 returns a 404 error, btw. Probably should have mentioned that earlier. Am listening to the recording at the new link provided; thank you. Durova^Charge! 06:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, verified: that is the word for word title of the argument. Nods on that one. Durova^Charge! 06:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Indymedia does have editorial guidelines: [2]. ZoeL (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Any individual can join the features list and propose a new feature for the middle column. A proposal can take the form of an idea or a completed feature. Completed features are usually between 50 and 80 words and include at least one link to the newswire, preferably also links to background information. If no one objects to the feature proposal within 24-hours, and if it is completed, it will be uploaded to the middle column. A bit more lax than Wikinews, actually. Durova^Charge! 06:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Debating the specific details of the indymedia sourcea probably isn't worth anyones time - I've posted a selection of protest coverage above (At the very end of the Other editor's questions/comments section) and something else could be posted instead. The details of the protest aren't contentious in the slightest. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec, heading to check Indymedia guidelines) Regarding the grease reference, here's the full paragraph:

Twenty years ago, when I worked on an advice line for lesbians, I would take call after call from self-hating, suicidal women who had experienced horrific homophobia. Thanks to feminism and gay liberation, that situation has altered radically. What a disgrace, therefore, that our legacy amounts to this: if you are unhappy with the constraints of your gender, don't challenge them. If you are tired of being stared at for snogging your same-sex partner in the street, have a sex change. Where are those who go berserk about the ethics of genetic engineering yet seem not to worry about major, irreversible surgery on healthy bodies? Also, those who "transition" seem to become stereotypical in their appearance - fuck-me shoes and birds'-nest hair for the boys; beards, muscles and tattoos for the girls. Think about a world inhabited just by transsexuals. It would look like the set of Grease.

Now these are strong words that poke at quite a few hot buttons. Within context, though, she appears to be arguing that homophobia remains a strong enough force that people resort to a surgery they wouldn't otherwise undertake, in order to escape straight society's pressures. She directs barbs at the stereotyped apparel that, she claims, gets assumed by persons in transition. And while her central thesis about the motivation for gender change surgery is very assailable, she appears even more angry at the forces that create this putative pressure, than at the people who (in her view) submit to it. Durova^Charge! 06:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that this is not what she actually said - it's your attempt at coming up with a polite summary of what you think she meant. The language you used in your summary removes the provocative and transphobic language that actually caused the backlash against Bindel; in substituting your own words for hers you misrepresent both the controversy surrounding her and her critics. Rebecca (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If that actually caused the backlash, please demonstrate with reliable sources. Of course I don't intend that summary as proposed text for the article; if that's 'the problem' and and no other exists, then we ought to be in complete agreement. Durova^Charge! 06:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you find confusing here. Bindel is a controversial figure precisely because of her provocative and transphobic language, which is why you find said the statements that people actually did find outrageous littered through every single source on the matter. That what you think she meant it might be less offensive if she'd couched it in polite theory-speak is neither here nor there. Rebecca (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Source 6, the newspapers response to complaints, highlights the language that people wrote in to complain about for the 2004 article and source 18 for the more recent "strange sexual practices" one. There's lots out there - google for "Bindel cast of grease" or "Bindel strange sexual practices" and you'll find pages and pages of it. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea that she is only controversial because of the trans writing is a POV, and not supportable. She has written other things that have caused controversy - and they used to feature in the biography but have been trimmed out. I have suggested already that her support for women who murder violent partners and her opposition to prostitution from before Nov 2008 need to be reinstated, as they have verifiable references and were not removed/modified/minimised-out with discussion. She is notable (and was nominated for an award) on the basis of her writing and work on a range of human rights issues which includes lesbianism, human trafficking and domestic violence, and this should feature. That the trans controversy was that significant, is itself a POV, probably one not shared by abusive husbands and women who murder them, sex-workers and men that use them, and pimps. Mish (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. Language like "In 2009, her continued publication of controversial articles" with a link to an article to this article is highly original research sounding. Bindel's name is not even there in the two NUS releases which supposedly were created in response to her article. That reads like a synthesis of information to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

We've already discussed a change of wording on that above and the issue with the sources is just that they spell her surname differently. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated that I have absolutely no objection to further expansion about her activist career, including her work on all of the above topics. These things all warrant significant mention; indeed, since I haven't seen any sources linking her to trans-related hate efforts prior to her time at The Guardian, the entire article up to that point should be about the other topics. Are you and Benji actually reading Zoe and my responses at all? The only thing I will not accept is biased attempts to minimise the controversy that did occur around her trans views - like the ludicrous attempt higher up the page to equate it to her opinions about Barbie dolls. Rebecca (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

@Ricky81682 - before going further, apparently the NUS documents spelled Bindel's name wrong - as Bindle (students these days...) Mish (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC) @Ricky81682 - you are correct, the article linked to has nothing to do with the NUS motion (which mentions her in the context of a no platform for transphobia). If advocating in a jocular way that all women abandon heterosexuality and become lesbians is controversial, then it should be included as an example of her journalistic style, not in the context of the NUS censure debate or the trans controversy.Mish (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that it is an example of her 'journalistic style', per se (which sounds suspiciously close to WP:SYN); it is a view that's not particularly uncommon from Bindel's particular school of feminism, though. Rebecca (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

More thought - perhaps the way the no platform could be included is to say something along the lines that in 2009 the NUS passed a no platform for transphobia motion focused on 'Julie Bindle' (sic). Mish (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of specifically noting that someone made a typo in the motion, except to try and undermine the source? It doesn't change the fact that it is the official policy of the NUS Women's Campaign, which is the relevant issue here. Rebecca (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

@Rebecca, so far two people new to this have failed to find the reference within the cited text (I couldn't either), that way other people will be less likely to experience the problem of finding no reference to 'Bindel' when they go to the source. This was my use of 'style', the point is that a piece on reactions to her journalism ought to focus on more than this issue, if it is to be about her journalism rather than her writing on transsexual issues - if it is the latter, then it should simply say that.

Under her work with Justice for Women, this statement is factually wrong: "Among their issues are matricide involving domestic abuse.[8]" There is no mention of matricide, which is when a child kills their mother,

The associated links are inappropriate for the subject (Bindel), as they feature books by others, such as the Southall Black Sisters, no mention of Justice for Women or Bindel, although it is clear that "They have not merely offered welfare advice, but spearheaded many high profile campaigns on domestic violence, abused women who kill [...] immigration rights, and the dangers posed to women by the rise of religious fundamentalism". The original pre-Nov 2008 statement was more representative, better sourced, and clearly the change from that to 'mariticide' to 'matricide' has lost something significant in the editing. This block of references is eccentric, because these books contain few quotes by or references to Bindel and are not by or about her, so it is not obvious why they should be referenced. These are the few examples of relevant Bindel writing as cited in those books:

• Bindel J., 'Terror on our Streets', The Guardian, 13 December 2006
• Bindel J., 'The Rise of the Cyber-Stalker', Guardian, 10 January 2007
• Bindel J., 'Neither an Ism nor a Chasm', in All the Rage: Reasserting Radical Lesbian Feminism, Women's Press, London 1996
• Bindel J., 'Prejudice in death', The Guardian, 21 October 2005

other 'controversial' examples could include:

• Bindel J., 'Why I hate men', The Guardian, 2 Nov 2006
• Bindel J., 'The making of a killer', The Guardian, 16 July 2007
• Bindel j., 'Testosterone-fuelled theories', The Guardian, 13 June 2007
• Bindel J., 'Beating the wife-beaters', The Guardian, 16 Mar 2007
• Bindel J., 'Why men hate me', The Guardian, 24 December 2007

In any year there are plenty of Bindel articles that received hundreds of comments:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/juliebindel

If you need a reference for 'Hecklers' you could use the following, because she discusses it there, and lays out the position on transsexuality she took in the debate clearly:

• Bindel J., 'My trans mission', The Guardian, 1 August 2007

On legal reform covering women who kill violent husbands:

• Bindel, J. 'An end to the easy way out', The Guardian, 29 July 2008

Opposition to legalisation of prostitution:

• Bindel J., '2007: Against legalising prostitution', 29 Dec 2006

Mish (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You have now been repeatedly told that Bindel's name is misspelt in the reference; please actually read what we're saying (or alternatively, actually read the reference yourself.) As for the "style" section; I'm just not seeing how this could be written in a way that doesn't violate WP:SYN. Most columnists whose work is online wind up with a string of comments, and there are no sources to suggest that Bindel is especially significant in this regard. Trying to come up with general conclusions about her columns in this manner would be original research in light of any sources about them as a whole.

I am not hugely opposed to renaming the section, but the point I'm making is that her time at The Guardian and her publication of hate speech are essentially one and the same. She has written on a range of other issues, but none than I've seen have prompted much of a reaction outside the paper's comments section (or at least that I've seen sources for), and to my knowledge she hadn't published significant transphobic material prior to her stint at The Guardian. It would be nice to have some coverage of the other issues she has written about for balance, but in the absence of sources for such, trying to fit her writing on trans issues as a small part of some broader narrative (i.e. the Barbie dolls case) is merely original research.

Finally, on the Justice for Women section; again, if you had actually read what I've been saying, you would have noticed that I had already highlighted that the Justice for Women section was dubious, and that some of the (obscure) book references were probably incorrect (in light of what their own website states their mission is). Indeed, on this entire section, I generally agree with everything you've said, and if you feel a prior version covered this better, I'd be happy for you to revert to it. My central concern with the proposed changes purely concerns Benjiboi's proposed whitewashing of her vilification of the trans community. Rebecca (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

@Rebecca. I've not been told, benjiboi was told once as I recall - I told Ricky8162, so "You have now been repeatedly told" is wrong, as this is first time I have mentioned it - and as a way of suggesting how the reference might be rendered useful. I have read what you are saying, and what the reference says.

Three items on trans out of 163 over a period of nine years, one of which appears to be offensive, and was apologised for three times. Bindel has clearly not apologised for her views, but for the way she has expressed those views in one article. I am not sure what the point is of citing her writing on trans as coinciding with her time at the Guardian. It is also not accurate. the first price she wrote on transsexuality was the interview with Claudia for the Sunday telegraph Magazine. I do have a copy of that, and it is consistent with the views expressed in the Guardian. The style is clearly significant, because she claims to write in a way that is controversial - just as with a satitist, if their being a satirists is not understood, the content has to be understood in that context. Swift's 'Modest proposal', for example. Bindel writes in a way that is deliberately provocative and scathing, and trans people did not like that approach when applied to their issues - but they are not alone in this. I do not think that the item on her journalism should focus on just the trans writing, nor that only focusing on the trans writing specifically, represents this properly - it needs to include other items that have received strong response too. That one has to validate the response in order to cite the documented examples of her journalism in her own biography seems bizarre - clearly she wrote articles like this: "This one's for Emma" which was published by the Guardian on Wed 23rd July 2008, [3] I don't really understand why such examples of her journalism would not be permissible in her biograph. Perhaps an admin can explain why they should be excluded and only those that expressed views transsexual people were offended about should be included because I do not understand, and I am not stupid. Mish (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Then there was this one, which I seem to remember pissed a few people off long before the trans thang: "Gay men need to talk straight about paedophilia" Julie Bindel, Guardian, March 3, 2001.Mish (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Your contention about how often Bindel has written about trans issues is simply false. She has written a lot more than three articles, and a lot more than one of them were offensive. The reason why Bindel's "apology" didn't take on more significance was because it was roundly with a respones of "uh, she apologised for her tone on one article amidst years of publishing hate speech? What about the rest of it?" I'm on a slow connection right now and can't get on to newspaper databases, but it's all there, and I would be happy to document it for you if you want to persist with claims like this.

I have now told you at least twice that I not only do not oppose, but would support the expansion of the journalism section to deal with other issues that she has covered (whether positive or negative) - precisely because it needs balance. I envisage there being a fair amount of her writing about domestic violence, for one - and the link you cited would be a great reference. If you can find a source for the pedophilia article verifying that it is particularly notable, go ahead and add that too. The only bit of what you're suggesting above that I disapprove of is the notion is the line you seemed to be pushing: that she's just an emotive writer, and that this somehow so excuses her forays into hate speech that we should ignore verifiable sources that lambasted Bindel for it. Rebecca (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

More about Bindel and Emma Humphreys: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Map-My-Life-Story-Humphreys/dp/0954634101/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/924996.stm

In fact, given that this was what inspired her work on domestic violence, which led her into journalism, this is quite significant: J. Bindel. This one's for Emma, Guardian, 23 July 2008: "Julie Bindel on how the death of an abused woman inspired her campaign to end domestic violence"

I reproduced the original pre-Nov 2008 section with references earlier in response to Zoe, so I will not repeat that, but the link/reference was:

http://www.writewords.org.uk/interviews/julie_bindel.asp

How credible that source is I am not clear, but I have supplied plenty of alternative material. The assertion that what I have provided is original research is fatuous. You cannot say that you cannot find references, and then when somebody provides them dismiss this as original research. "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." This is what I am doing, to ensure that the details of Bindel's journalistic work are fully and fairly represented.

That'll do for now - plenty of reliable stuff about Bindel to help you develop a balanced biography now, if you want to; otherwise I can do it next month when it is freed up again and I have more time, if requested - or you could just delete the page completely. Mish (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

And if you had actually read what I'd said above, you would know that I've got no particular problem with the inclusion of material of this nature. Go right ahead and add it. Rebecca (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A bit surprising how this page has been developing. Would be all well and good if useful progress occurred, but it's wasteful and frustrating to enter a conversation, state A, and then see someone step in and say 'B is wrong and misleading.' Then to clarify the nature of A, and afterward get additional rebuttals of B. Returning after a day, someone else has objected to C in the same thread--yet a rearead doesn't reveal any instance of C. I would like to discuss A--and A happens to this: if reliable third party sources affirm that Ms. Bindel's Grease analogy sparked a controversy then by all means cite those sources and describe the effect that it had. Otherwise it would be very difficult to discuss that bit fairly without running into policy problems. On the one hand, the short mention looks cherry picked; on the other, a longer treatment would risk WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:SYNTH. Now if we can stay on topic and discuss that--without imagining it to be something else or changing topics entirely--then that would be really productive. Otherwise I'll return to writing African geography: about twenty percent of the continent's national parks are redlinked. The site needs more people building articles there. Durova^Charge! 00:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The sources quote the language that they found controversial - which is why the "Grease" analogy pops up rather a lot (more than 200 results for that alone on Google) - although it's one of many. I said it when you first made this comment; I find it a bit bizarre. She is a figure that is controversial for making transphobic remarks, a fact we have backed up in sources. You then...dispute that the transphobic remarks caused the controversy? Is someone out there claiming it was because of her ...choice of footwear? Rebecca (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course it's a concern whenever a BLP article says the subject wrote [brief hot-button excerpt from a larger statement], and the article text doesn't include specific citations of third party reliable sources to document the reaction against that particular hot-button excerpt. Bindel's writing on Gender reassignment surgery and transgender issues, has caused controversy in the transgender and greater LGBT communities.. Ian Mayes doesn't mention any other reliable publications criticizing the column. Based upon the citations provided, the article could state that The Guardian received approximately 200 letters of protest including letters from academics, medical doctors, and other relevant professionals. What it may not state is what it does: an assertion of a larger backlash followed by a fact tag. Fact tagging shouldn't occur at a living person's biography for negative assertions. The claim ought to have been referenced in the first place, or else not made. Durova^Charge! 05:26, 20 April 2009

In terms of the introductory statement concerning her being criticised for transphobia, we have a number of sources: her no-platforming by the NUS, statements by public figures that have opposed her, etc. Beyond that, it isn't fair to either Bindel or her critics if we don't list what she actually said. It is not sufficient to link merely the one Guardian article and its clarification, since the backlash against Bindel comes from a range of extremely controversial articles she has written over the space of several years. I have no particular problem with the coverage of the "Grease" article being limited to a) what she said, and b) the complaints The Guardian said they received - as long as it isn't implied that it was just this one article.

Furthermore, I might remind you that Bindel's critics are also living people - and in some cases, people we have biographies on, too. A number of Bindel's critics are notable public figures - Susan Stryker and Peter Tatchell come to mind, but there are others; essentially dismissing their perspective because no one gave a damn about their BLP coverage is not really cool. Essentially representing the likes of Stryker (a respected academic) as someone who got worked up and publicly slammed someone over one article is a far worse BLP violation than quoting what Bindel herself said. Rebecca (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The "explanation" issued by the Guardian clearly identifies the sections that people wrote in to complain about. Now I've finally figured out that Google News limits to one month by default, I've dug out a couple more sources - this one for example, which mentions the Grease phrase specifically.

The fact tag was added recently, months after the statement was added to the article - the fact there's been a backlash against her isn't as far as I can tell particularly contentious. There were 200 letters of complaint, despite the fact that the transsexual community in the UK is very small (less than 2,300 gender recognition certificates have been issued) and the protest outside the Stonewall awards was the largest Trans protest in the UK to date. (This isn't mentioned in the article just because wording couldn't be agreed on how to describe it and it didn't seem relevant enough to include - have a look through the talk archive for a discussion on this) Bindel herself describes the reaction as an uproar and Diva Magazine reports on protesters from "all over the UK" and users language such as "under pressure from the community" and the transexual and queer communities plan to protest...". (Username change due to harassment - should not have used my real name on WP) ~Excesses~ (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not personally bothered if the 'set of Grease' citation stands, personally I think the title of the 2004 Guardian piece says it all. If you want some kind of perspective, then PfC lists it as an example of discriminatory articles in the press here: http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/1293, as well as the published apology and if you follow the link through to McNab's response you will see the cartoon that accompanied the article. PfC is a notable organisation, until recently run by people two of whom were awarded OBE/MBE's for their work and one who is a Law Professor, advisor to the Government, and president of WPATH (formerly HBIGDA). I don't think anybody would deny it was nasty and people were offended, myself included. I have checked the Guardian site, and after the apology and before the protest there were two pieces dealing with trans issues (both 2007), one relates to Russel Reid's disciplinary, the other the Hecklers debate, both contain views not presented in an offensive way; in 2008 she wrote about the RFH using the one of the women's toilets for gender-neutral toilets and that mentions trans (but was actually more problematic for people like myself than trans people). After the protest, she wrote the one about her concerns with LGBT/queer movement. Sorry for the slight digression, but I have every confidence in this process. Mish (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)