Talk:Mridul Wadhwa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Controversies section

There has been some disagreement over the inclusion of this section, which has been removed several times by Amanda A. Brant. The material appears to be well-sourced. AAB has given no valid reason why the material should be excluded. If AAB wants to delete this material, she should provide a reason here.

I support the inclusion of the material.

Sweet6970 (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC) corrected Sweet6970 (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

That is wholly untrue. The material is clearly WP:UNDUE. A minor incident/comment is blown out of proportion by a WP:SPA with a long record of problem editing as their talk page and block log illustrate (despite their very limited editing – in fact their edit history seems to consist mainly of policy violations and problem editing resulting in sanctions and warnings), and the section has the same length as the section on her entire career, which any reasonable editor familiar with Wikipedia policy understands it not WP:DUE. This is achieved e.g. by including the WP:UNDUE opinion of one random person, presented in a pretentious manner ("Dr") not consistent with the manual of style, who is mainly known for activism in the TERF (or "GC") movement (primarily on Twitter), and who is quite frankly not that important. This is also the only opinion on Wadhwa included by a third party in the section, which any reasonable editor familiar with Wikipedia policy understands is not WP:DUE. In addition, there are BLP concerns here as well, including past attempts to harrass the subject of this article here on Wikipedia[1] and in the real world, as discussed by some of the sources. The onus is on the editor seeking to include new clearly problematic content to obtain consensus for that, not the other way round. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC) NB this comment has been changed since I replied to it. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You say This is wholly untrue. I don’t know what you are referring to as untrue. The material is DUE. I do not see any BLP concerns. The material should remain in the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the material about Dr. Jessica Taylor. So Amanda A. Brant, you should self-revert your edit of 13:19 today 19 December. (I agree with your edit of 13:21 today, toning down the language.) Sweet6970 (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You are not allowed to change other editors' talk page comments. It's normal and accepted practice to refine one's comments. The adjustments are neither suitable for nor intended as a new comment. If you feel the need to respond to an earlier version of the comment posted a few hours earlier that conveyed exactly the same message, only with less detail, you may indicate that in your own comment. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

READ WP:TALK So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. If you've accidentally posted to the wrong page or section or if you've simply changed your mind, it's been only a short while and no one has yet responded, you may remove your comment entirely.

But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes. An exception to this rule may be permitted if there is only one reply and it invokes WP:MUTUAL Sweet6970 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That is only advice and not binding (as the page even points out), and it's not universally accepted practice. Making a few adjustments to talk page comments is widely accepted practice. Furthermore, the page also points out: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." The advice on that page does not make it acceptable for you to substantially edit my comment. If the earlier version of the comment is important to you for some arcane reason, you can just point that out in your own comment. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This isn't the first time you've resorted to personal attacks, accusing me of being a SPA despite the fact that I've been editing on this account since 2018 and implying I have an anti-trans agenda despite the fact that I'm literally trans myself. You've offered very few suggestions as far as bettering the article itself, only resorted to personal attacks, and are now referring to the title of someone who's received a PhD as said person presenting themselves in a "pretentious manner." So I have to wonder, what are we doing here? Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I did not edit your comment - I reverted it and told you to make your additional comments as a new post. But, of course, you should not need to read the guidelines - it should be obvious to you that changing your comment after someone has replied to you gives a misleading impression of the discussion. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Recent revert and thoughts

Commenting from my phone so forgive the weird format, I'll be out most of the day. To get it out the way I defer to SideSwipe9th's judgement on the Susan Smith mention.

In regards to the recent revert, could you partially revert to include some of the grammar fixes? The graham lineham mention seems like it should be flipped as it currently reads weirdly.

I feel like FWS's history of criticizing Wadhwa should be elaborated on a little, since it currently seems like they came out of nowhere on just this issue. I'll try and get some corroborating sources for weight when I return since I believe it was mentioned in a few.

I thought KJKs mention in the Times was due and helped provide a concrete example of her position, since it currently just says she made unevidenced statements/accusations attributed to OD. I'd tried to phrase it to make it clear that her comment and her videos were separate things but apparently not well enough. Might it work if we attribute her statement to the Times? Either way I'll see if there are more sources mentioning her comment.

The call for genocide seems noteworthy, but if we include it then the caveat it was one call should definitely be added to clear things up. Either way there's a grammar issue ATM with the list missing an "and" before the last item.

That FWS helped amplify the Twitter campaign was reported on by OD so I think it seems due. Relatedly, OD links to a Twitter search for posts relating to Wadhwa from FWS and saying they amplified stories about her - an archive link confirming that when they posted the article the tweets in question were about the podcast might help clear things up about chronology and what OD was referring to in terms of FWS.

Additionaly, I'd like to hear people's thoughts on including content from the Christian Institute articles. They're not a reliable source but are mentioned in the OD article so may be useful with proper attribution.

Finally, the commas re-added in the paragraph about the ERCC having to lockdown seem misplaced. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

On the Graham Linehan bit, it's in that order to avoid a close paraphrase issue. On the commas, I've removed one and kept the other. I rather like using Oxford commas.

The problem with including KJK's comments in the way they were presented in the reverted edit, is that OpenDemocracy don't include them in relation to the video they mention, and The Times does not state if the comments were made in the video she released or if she was approached for comment by them. Are the comments in the video that OpenDemocracy refer to? Or are they something that The Times approached her on? If it's the former, they're difficult to include due to synthesis grounds, as neither source directly connects them to the video. If it's the latter, then it's a different kind of synthesis mixed with original research, as we're creating a link that doesn't actually exist.

The call for transgender genocide is one of proportion. While OpenDemocracy does draw attention to it, per the source there was only one example. In relation to the sheer volume of the other number of threatening messages, I'm not sure that for our purposes it is particularly noteworthy.

I don't think it's due or proper to include content from unreliable sources, particularly in a BLP, so I would not be in favour of including anything from the Christian Institute. I also really don't think we can include more content into that section in general while also keeping it in proportion to the sources on the harassment. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the in-depth reply! Only one question, what're your thoughts on noting that FWS was involved in the twitter campaign? Didn't touch on that in the reply and it seems due. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

We could certainly find room for ...including FWS... in my proposed prototype single-paragraph section above I think.  Tewdar  14:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking at it, it seems that the paragraph would be very large and best split into multiple when you replace the "blah blah blahs" with actual details. It also lists all of those who harassed her and then lists the various things they did, which serves to make it seem like they all did all of those instead of making clear the gradations in harassment from different parties. It de-couples her fear for her life from the fact Linehan specifically doxxed her, and doesn't mention how her coworkers also received harassment. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

No, the paragraph will not be 'very large'. I can incorporate some of the changes you mention. We can even mention her coworkers if you really insist, even though the article is not about them really. But five paragraphs is taking the piss.  Tewdar  15:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Incorporate them and we'll see how long it is. That her co-workers were harassed since she worked there is a very important detail. I took the liberty of cutting out some extraneous info and condensing smaller paragraphs into larger ones, so now the total is 3. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It's supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a bleddy court deposition! 😡  Tewdar  20:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we've already got plenty of material sourced solely from the OpenDemocracy article, which as Sweet6970 pointed out, describes itself as a media platform rather than as a news publication. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I am unable to see how we can obtain "The Times and Herald ran attack articles" from The Times has run seven stories about Wadhwa since May last year, often based on complaints from small groups opposed to trans rights, and the Herald joined the pile-on. Do I need to be politically re-educated?  Tewdar  22:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

As a trans person, I am quite literally imploring everyone to stop interpreting any faint criticism of anything a trans person says or does as a vicious transphobic attack pile-on full of lies. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Try including the context The campaign against Wadhwa was amplified by the press as the abuse spread...The Times has run seven stories about Wadhwa since May last year, often based on complaints from small groups opposed to trans rights, and the Herald joined the pile-on.

The article text could read "The Times and the Herald ran stories about Wadhwa often based on complaints from small anti-trans groups", since the Open Democracy article makes it clear her harassment campaign was amplified by the press and notes their coverage in that regard. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

You elided four fucking paragraphs there 😂 And I'm reverting your shitty statistics again later 👍  Tewdar  15:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I did, because the first two paragraphs detail harassment in social media and phone calls (not press), the third mentions some websites that harassed her and the Christian publications that did it (generally not considered the established press), the fourth mentions twitter (aka, not the press), and finally the next one actually mentions the press and says they joined in the pile on. As a a refresher, the point of ellipses is indeed to skip extraneous material. Also, I don't believe you have consensus to omit the detail that the tweets came from 240 accounts and half came from 30, which Open Democracy mentioned as well, and is more important than quoting TSN's conclusion. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, the point of ellipses is often to make text say something that the original did not... the conclusion is the only important part of that sentence, the stats are what led to that conclusion and can be safely omitted for the benefit of our long-suffering readers.  Tewdar  15:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, I could have just quoted the full section - the point OD included them as amplifying the campaign against her would still stand - but you've complained about my comments being too lengthy before. Comment too long, comment too short, gotta find that Goldilocks length for you apparently. The conclusion is not mentioned in the OD article, and the stats are more important, since by robbing their statement of the context of the specifics it's easy to dismiss. Let the facts speak for themselves, no need to quote their conclusion. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, I challenge you to find another editor who thinks that removing the conclusions and keeping the raw stats is a sensible solution.  Tewdar  16:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

When looking at the original content on it (removed here), you seem to be making a WP:NOTSTATS argument. However I don't think that NOTSTATS applies to this. This is because the numbers that were there have context, and in my opinion improve the summary of the conclusions that TSN make with regards to it being a manipulation of Twitter's trending algorithm. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I would propose this modification to the version currently in the article. An analysis by the Trans Safety Network revealed that the approximately 4,800 tweets using the hashtag came from approximately 240 accounts, with nearly half of the tweets posted by only 30 accounts. The Trans Safety Network concluded that instead of being an "outpouring of genuine concern about women's services" the trend was instead manufactured transphobic disinformation, and manipulation of Twitter's trending algorithm by "a small number of obsessive accounts". Changes in italics.

This restores the conclusion section, and makes a slight tweak to the re-summarised numbers that avoids a close paraphrase issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It's better than just the raw stats. I don't think it needs the numbers, but I can see why some people might like to include them. Just was trying to trim it down a bit, is all.  Tewdar  18:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Tidying up some of the mess

I have made a series of changes to this wikipedia page to improve it and bring it into line with the BLP. These include:

·Removing a claim about Wadwha’s transition: this does not seem to be pertinent to the article and the “source” does not support the claim, but is used to insert a quote into the reference section which is inflammatory, contentious and misgenders the subject; in violation of our manual of style and the BLP

·Applying the BLP to the “work” section. There was discussion above about due and undue weight. I agree with the criticisms about weighting, but there are larger issues at play: unlike the statement included that criticises it, Wadwha’s statement is presented through synthesis and the synthesis does not match the what’s reported in the Times, nor the Herald, nor what’s recorded in the primary source provided: the Guilty Feminist Podcast. Furthermore, the quotes attributed to Wadwha in the Times and Herald do not match the recording in the Guilty Feminist Podcast. They appear to be a largely original synthesis drawn from a press release, which both articles cover, written by an anti-trans campaigning group For Women Scotland to attack Wadwha.

It is not clear to me why sources which are contradicted by the primary sources linked in the article have been left standing when the BLP dictates that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and the talk page. I have done so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.228.84 (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The material is well-sourced and without it, the article does not make sense. I have reinstated it. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That is not an argument for reinstating the material, but for editing the article to make more sense without it. I've reverted your reinstatement and flagged this to the BLP noticeboard for more expert opinion. The inclusion of material this contentious when it's synthesised from sources that appear to be unreliable according to the primary source available through the article is hard to square with my understanding of the responsibilities the BLP sets out for editors. 90.242.228.84 (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about your concerns? Which part of the quoted material doesn't match the source? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not confident about transcribing podcasts, but in their post @TheTranarchist has covered a significant part of what Mridul is recorded saying. The Herald and Times coverage of these comments do not match each other and, looking at the fuller quote, I think it's fair to say they do not accurately describe what she said. How the article's synthesised that reportage adds to the due weight issues. 90.242.228.84 (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Want to say I support your reasoning here.

For the first point your analysis is spot on. That she is trans is due, but the mention should not be in such weird terms and with a transphobic quote from a poor quality source, especially when sources already present have the information in much less inflammatory terms.

For the second, I also agree, so for a more thorough breakdown for others:

citing the feminist current podcast, a primary source, like that is not particularly necessary

the times citation is in a weird spot

the herald scotland citation is used to write "Sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well," that rape survivors could not heal without addressing "unacceptable beliefs" and that if they sought care at the Edinburgh clinic, they should "expect to be challenged on [their] prejudices." She had previously left the Scottish National Party after MSPs backed an amendment to allow survivors of rape and sexual violence to pick the sex rather than the gender of the person examining them. Author and sexual violence specialist Jessica Taylor remarked, "It is of concern to me that any rape centre would take the view that their clients who access their services at a time of crisis and trauma, would need politically re-educating so they agree with the views of the CEO and centre policies. This isn’t person centred working."

The quotations for Wadhwa are taken out of context and presented in pieces, while a quote from Taylor which misrepresents Wadhwa's quote is presented in full. For reference, the full Wadhwa would be we might have fear of men of a certain ethnicity, we mighty have fear of trans people ... Sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. It is not a discerning crime. But these spaces are also for you. But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices. If you have to reframe your trauma, I think it is important as part of that reframing, having a more positive relationship with it, where it becomes a story that empowers you and allows you to go and do other more beautiful things with your life, you also have to reframe your relationship with prejudice. Otherwise, you can’t realy, in my view, recover from trauma and I think that’s a very important message that I am often discussing with my colleagues at Edinburgh Rape Crisis. This text sends a very different message than what the snippets previously in the article conveyed, and it should be noted that the times and the herald's quotes don't match up (not sure which is more authentic). Haven't listened to the full podcast but we can at least confirm that the sources use different quotes. A source that more accurately describes her comments should be used, they should probably be presented in full as a block quote, and a subsequent paragraph should detail the hate she received over it.

the citation to the Edinburgh rape crisis center is a primary source and shouldn't be used like that

the second citation to the herald only provides one quote from her statement, a source that better summarizes or provides more context should be used

the citation to the green party's website is a primary source and single quote, ironically the preceding citation to the herald would actually be much better for this since it discusses more of what they said.

the next three citations / the JK Rowling section are shaky at best. For one, this is an article about Wadhwa, and this paragraph appears in a section devoted to her work. What JK Rowling did later and said was due to Wadhwa is irrelevant here. Even if that wasn't the case, the facts that multiple notable TERF activists are on the board, that multiple LGBT organizations denounced her decision to exclude trans women, and that multiple Scottish women’s and human rights groups wrote a letter denouncing the decision and pointing out trans women have been able to use their services for over a decade and Rowling's supposed fears have never come to pass feels rather relevant context.

In short, this section relies excessively on synthesis and primary sources in addition to framing Wadhwa in a negative light.

The article needs a lot of work and should be updated using more reliable sources: first to better highlight her career before all this and second to more accurately cover the hate campaign she received. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for a thorough dig through of the article, the sources and transcribing a chunk of the podcast. I could see there were issues, but not all of them and I wasn’t clear how best to resolve the issues I was seeing in-line with the BLP.

I’m wary of BLPs being used to abuse and repeat the harassment of subjects, so I deleted the material as drafted, but I’m not against improving and then reinstating it. I have tried to find reliable secondary coverage of what she said, but while I found examples of the Times uncritically covering attempts to harass Wadhwa (ForWomenScotland threatening to sue the SNP for letting her run for selection; a particularly radical anti-trans activist with a history of harassment ranting about her…) I could not find reliable secondary sources. Would it be appropriate to have this as a subsection, use the Guilty Feminist Podcast as a reference (a fuller transcript in the notes, perhaps?) as a source for the block quote, and then use the Herald, Times and OpenDemocracy articles to source some of the backlash?

When it comes to JK Rowling’s centre, I think it’s best to omit it entirely. It isn’t directly relevant to Wadhwa and the necessary context would turn this into another article. You say, elsewhere, that you’ll try and draft a revision: if you haven’t beaten me to it by then, I can try and draft something tomorrow. 90.242.228.84 (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

You have said that material in the article is well sourced but the article makes some significant allegations which don't seem to be supported by verifiable facts ie: "After comedian and writer Graham Linehan published part of Wadhwa's home address, Wadhwa said that for the first time she feared for her life" but the source reference article used to verify this claim seems to use just a quote from Mridul Wadhwa themself to back it up and that doesn't seem to be well-sourced at all, it basically amounts to the subject of the article making unverified claims which are being reported as facts. That seems to be against the ethos of Wikipedia. Has any reputable Wikipedia editor verified that claim from Mridul Wadhwa without using the quote from the subject as a source? It seems like that allegation about Graham Linehan should be removed from the article until it has been properly sourced. Acoustamatix (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The article no longer makes sense because it refers to the reaction to the statements by Mridul Wadhwa without any mention of the statements. This has the effect of making the article extremely biased, because it looks as if MW has suffered harassment without any cause. There is no report of Ms Wadhwa suing for defamation, which would have been appropriate of the statements had been falsely attributed to her.

The material which has been removed includes:Wadhwa later released a statement saying that "All support is survivor centred, as it should be", and that conversations about societal prejudices would take place if and when victims were ready,[7] but that "If what we see/hear from someone is clearly prejudiced and we are not responding to their urgent support need it is also part of our role to provide a space to explore and challenge this, in as kind a way as possible."

So Ms Wadhwa does not deny the substance of what it is reported that she said.

Also removed was this In December 2022, J.K. Rowling said that Wadhwa's claim that survivors should "reframe" their trauma led to her setting up Beira's Place, a "women-only" centre for sex abuse survivors which excludes trans women. This is relevant information, because it shows the significant effect of Ms Wadhwa’s statements.

The removals have the effect of denying information to readers, and whitewashing the subject of the article.

I do not know why the IP has immediately [gone to the BLP noticeboard, rather than engaging in discussion on the Talk page.

Sweet6970 (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

As I explained above, details should indeed be kept, but the way it was written relied far too heavily on synthesis and primary sources. If JK Rowling should be mentioned at all, that should be in a reception section or something, not in a section devoted to Wadhwa's work. It should also contain a lot more details, as described above. It is not white-washing, the information should be there, but presented in a more neutral and less cherry-picked way that relies on more reliable sources. In addition, as open democracy explains, the large amount of harassment she received was because of transphobia and preceded that podcast and those statements. I will work on the article later today to try to make sure all the information is covered, but the previous version was poorly put together and not encyclopedic. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I would be interested to see what your proposed version would look like – it is possible we may be able to come to an agreement. But you should not be working on an article where the text is in dispute – you should be seeking consensus for a new wording on this Talk page, not editing disregarding consensus.

Please set out your proposed wording here, for discussion.

Sweet6970 (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

"This has the effect of making the article extremely biased, because it looks as if MW has suffered harassment without any cause. "

I find this argument difficult to understand within the context of the BLP guidelines. I don't think we should reinstate content because it justifies and repeats a subject's harassment through heavy synthesis based on low-quality sources; nor that we should treat sources as a higher quality than they are because the subject has not sued NewsCorp for defamation; nor that the subject clarifying what they originally said is an admission that reporting of their comments is accurate. I think you've justified my asking for more experienced editors to look at this page to help ensure it complies with the BLP. 90.242.228.84 (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t recognise anything you say as relating to anything I have said. And I still don’t understand why you chose not to discuss this on the Talk page – but since I can’t work out what you’re talking about, it is perhaps a good thing that other editors (whether less or more experienced) have become involved. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

"I still don’t understand why you chose not to discuss this on the Talk page "

I started this discussion on the talk page. 90.242.228.84 (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I started this discussion on the talk page. I replied to you, disagreeing with you, and you declined to discuss the matter with me. ‘Discussion’ includes discussion with people who disagree with you. You chose not to discuss this matter with me on the Talk page. Sweet6970 (talk)

TheTranarchist I see you have ignored my comments above, which include:Please set out your proposed wording here, for discussion. and have gone ahead and changed the article without any consultation. This is not collaborative editing. And I do not agree with your changes. Sweet6970 (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This discussion was in regards to the how we should include details of the letter and whether we should include JK Rowling saying she started her clinic as a response (which I don't believe is worth mentioning). I did not ignore your comment as my edits to the article had absolutely nothing to do with that. Collaborative editing does not mean I must run every edit I make past you. What part of the changes specifically do you take issue with? Because it consisted of extra details about her background, work, parliamentary candidacy, and the harassment campaign against her. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The only issue I saw with the content was a borderline close paraphrase case with the OpenDemocracy source. I've boldly rectified it in this edit. I've also expanded the content on the analysis of the Twitter hashtag harassment by the Trans Safety Network, and I've made it clearer that the articles published by Wings and The Christian Institute were on their websites, and that the CI's series was amplified by the two US based news sites. Also given the controversial nature of this content, I've added further inline citations to the already existing sources.

When compared to the previous content I feel this is a significant improvement. What we didn't make clear previously was that the harassment Wadhwa received significantly pre-dated her appearance on The Guilty Feminist Podcast. That was a problem because we were in effect saying "Wadhwa made a controversial comment in 2021, and she received abuse because of those comments", yet we know from our sources that the campaign actually started while she was the director at Forth Valley RCC in 2019.

I've kept out the paragraph on "reframing your trauma" backlash because reframing trauma is a standard therapeutic technique when dealing with traumatic events. While I'm not opposed in principle to including a brief mention of Wadhwa's appearance on the podcast, a great amount of care would need to be taken with writing it because of how intricately connected the backlash to that appearance was to the harassment Wadhwa received in August 2021. We clearly had not done so with the previous content, especially with regards to when it happened in the greater story of the harassment campaign against Wadhwa. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

All I'm seeing is an article that's had anything even slightly resembling criticism or controversy painstakingly cut and reworked as a glowing endorsement, with all allusions to even potential criticism brushed off as transphobic harassment. That's neither helpful to the trans community as a whole nor in line with encyclopedic neutrality. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Beforesunsethighnoon: I've removed that content again. It was originally removed on good faith BLP objections as noted by the IP editor above, as such it cannot be restored without an affirmative consensus here first.

As I said last night, I'm not opposed in principle to including a brief mention of Wadhwa's appearance on that podcast. However a significant amount of care will need to be taken when writing it, because of how intricately connected the backlash to that appearance was to the harassment Wadhwa received in August 2021. Controversy and criticism sections are difficult to be NPOV compliant at the best of times, and the section that was previously in the article was not compliant with policy. In particular, coverage in The Times and The Herald needs to be assessed carefully against their broader role in the harassment campaign, as they are in no way neutral sources with regards to Wadhwa. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I was not eager to jump into the edit war yesterday, and tried to focus on improving the material. After the tweaks, it was still unbalanced—even compared to the Times/Herald reporting—and overlong. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

What would help when trying to figure out how to incorporate the podcast appearance would be a list of all reliable sources that have mentioned it. Aside from an 11 August 2021 article in The Times, and 12 August 2021 article in The Herald, which had been previously cited in the article, what other sources covered the podcast appearance and the reactions to it? I would be particularly interested in seeing sources independent of those two given the circumstances laid out in the OpenDemocracy article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Some coverage in The National in the context of Beira's Place. There are more pieces similarly framed with just trivial mentions. Other than that, I'm seeing poor sources and more pieces in The Times. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I've got no problem with including more sources, the more the better, but to cite The Times and the Herald as more biased than OpenDemocracy and therefore less worthy of inclusion is ridiculous. The Times is center-right, the Herald center-left, all three are equally credible and about equally biased. The Trans Safety Network is cited and clearly isn't going to be unbiased. The fact that Wadhwa made a controversial statement, controversy ensued, Wadhwa apologized, and now Edinburgh has two rape centers is more pertinent than a paragraph's worth of speculation on the nature of the twitter accounts talking about the controversy. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

That is not what I said. The political leanings of The Times and Herald are not the problem here. Their bias against the article subject, as noted in the OpenDemocracy article, is. I'm not saying that neither The Times or Herald cannot be used in the article, I'm saying that when we are weighing their reporting, it needs to be done in a manner that accounts for their bias against this person. Sources that are independent of The Times and Herald, like OpenDemocracy, are most helpful in determining how much detail we should cover this controversy in.

I will also point out that I did not say that we can restore what was previously in the article if we simply find more sources. The purpose of the additional sources is to try and help us write a balanced account of the controversy, should it be due. It's important to remember that while all content on Wikipedia must be verifiable to reliable sources, not all verifiable information must be included.

The TSN are cited in a specific context; their factual analysis of the activity on the #AskRapeCrisisScotland hashtag, ie the number of tweets made, how many accounts were involved, etc. Where we include their opinion in the conclusion of that analysis, it is properly attributed to the TSN. Within the context of the harassment Wadhwa has endured over the last four years, which pre-dated her appearance on the podcast, that the activity on the hashtag was inorganic is important, and we can gauge that importance by the fact that OpenDemocracy cited it for a paragraph in their article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

You keep stressing the importance of accounting for bias and including neutral sources, which the TSN isn't. Even without getting into the soundness of their math and the statistical conclusions they draw from it, they're just not a neutral source, nor are they trying to be. A writer for OpenDemocracy commenting that The Times and the Herald "joined the pile on" in and of itself displays a certain bias. If what we need is a source without bias in either direction, the only one I can find is the one Firefangledfeathers cited from The National. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I see that work has been done on this controversial article without getting the wording agreed on the Talk page. I consider that the ‘Harassment’ section is vastly bloated – the previous wording on this was perfectly adequate. But the wording which was last edited by Firefangledfeathers at least makes better sense than the current wording, which does not include any reference to why this character is notable. The last version, before Sideswipe9th’s revert, had implicit consensus, and so I am reverting to it. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: This restoration has been made against policy (WP:BLPRESTORE). When content has been removed on good faith BLP objections, if it is to be restored without significant changes, an affirmative consensus must be obtained on the talk page first. Please self-revert now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Also to note, variations of this content have been removed on explicit BLP objections on at least six occasions since it was inserted around December of last year ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). Sideswipe9th (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Sideswip9th that there was no consensus for this and a version should be hashed out here first. Also, the new harassment section details the length and extent of her harassment, while the previous devoted one paragraph to noting the threats forced the ERCC into lockdown. An unarguable improvement. Curiously, you call an-depth look at a years long harassment campaign "bloated", but repeatedly add (without consensus) three paragraphs devoted to 1 comment in a podcast TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I am pleased that you are now suggesting that a version should be hashed out here first. What is your suggested wording? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I have never said otherwise. Off the top of my head, I do not have one, just the general ideas it should not give undue weight to some minor criticism (ie 3 paragraphs for 1 comment), should probably not mention JKR, should not rely on primary sources as heavily as it does, and generally reflect that her comments extended to all bigotry. In short, the situation was she she said people shouldn't walk in being bigoted, either racist or transphobic, but that they'll still help them while also addressing the bigotry, and two sources known for general transphobia and piling on her said this is obviously evil because being bigoted towards trans people is supposedly their unalienable right. The context that the ERCC was open to all genders, and had more actual men than trans women usually, should also be included since that shows just how ridiculous the arguments were. In any case, you should self-revert until we reach a version here, not restore the disputed content prior to discussion of a new version. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

No, that is not what WP:BLPRESTORE says. The wording is If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Please be more careful when you are quoting policy. My edit was in accordance with policy – I reverted to the version which had agreement from other editors. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: That is exactly what I said. If it is to be restored without significant change, an affirmative consensus must be obtained first. No significant changes have been made to that section prior to its restoration. Will you please self-revert? Sideswipe9th (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Also please note WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. When an edit has been disputed, implicit consensus no longer applies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The material is well-sourced and the objections to it seem to be made on an OR basis. But whether or not there is any inaccuracy in the sources’ reporting, the fact that the matter was reported is relevant to this article – and is, indeed, what makes this subject notable. How about a wording which refers to the matter as controversy over reports in the press? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

No: a reliable source we have mentions both sources, which already have a reputation for transphobia, as being part of a harassment campaign against her. Wadhwa is notable because of the years long harassment campaign and her prior work, not this one specific thing she said that was taken out of context and now seemingly needs 3 whole paragraphs. You are overblowing just how important this is, both to the article and to her notability. If her comments had been just about racism and she publicly said "you can't come in here and say you don't want black people to treat you or also receive care here" nobody would bat an eye, but transphobia is so normalized that publications jumped on the fact she mentioned transphobia too as supposedly a bad thing because it's supposedly an ok thing to say "y'know this all-gender rape clinic that has been providing care to trans women for over a decade? Well the director said you'll still be treated if you're racist or transphobic but challenged on your beliefs, and this is literally oppression and shoving trans people down our throats" TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The article makes some significant allegations which don't seem to be supported by verifiable facts ie: "After comedian and writer Graham Linehan published part of Wadhwa's home address, Wadhwa said that for the first time she feared for her life" but the source reference article used to verify this claim seems to use just a quote from Mridul Wadhwa themself to back it up and is therefore not well-sourced at all, it basically amounts to the subject of the article making unverified claims which are being reported as facts. That seems to be against the ethos of Wikipedia. Has any reputable Wikipedia editor verified that claim from Mridul Wadhwa without using the quote from the subject as a source? It seems like that allegation about Graham Linehan should be removed from the article until it has been properly sourced. Acoustamatix (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Acoustamatix (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

If you believe that the source cited https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/trans-scotland-mridul-wadhwa-for-women-scotland/ is not reliable for its claim But the first time Wadhwa says she truly feared for her life was when Linehan published part of her home address. I suggest you bring the question to the reliable sources noticeboard for broader community input. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The source reference article cites an allegation that the subject Mridul Wadhwa has made themselves but dies not provide any factual evidence for the allegation. Is it normal for Wikipedia articles to use un-evidenced claims made by the subject as evidence for significant allegations made within articles? Acoustamatix (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The sources Wikipedia uses are not beholden to Wikipedia policies. There's no requirement in WP:V or WP:RS that a reliable source should show its sources. As editors we are neither here nor equipped to assess the truthfulness of an assertion by one or many sources.

That all said, given that OpenDemocracy is based in England, all of its articles are subject to editorial review, and England has very strong defamation laws that have successfully been used against many publications, I very much doubt that they included that information without verifying it themselves. I would also not expect them to link to where Linehan partially published her home address in their article, because if that was still live it would be only one step removed from OpenDemocracy publishing it themselves. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, none of which has been provided in this article, which reads more like a hagiography than a serious article. It is astounding from the comments on here that well-sourced facts have spuriously been removed from the article which clearly belong in any article related to this subject, while allegations for which there is no evidence whatsoever have been allowed to remain in the article, supported only by the questionable word of the subject. Acoustamatix (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

How then would you expect OpenDemocracy, or any other source, to provide the evidence you're requesting, in a manner that does not result in them also publishing Wadhwa's partial home address? Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

You have said in your reply "...where Linehan partially published her home address". Where is your evidence that your allegation is true? Do you have any verified source for the allegation that you have made? Acoustamatix (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm operating under the assumption that the OpenDemocracy source is reliable and have not published any falsehoods. The most recent discussion at RSN (prior to the one you opened) demonstrated its reliability through being cited as reliable by governmental reports, academic research, and other highly reliable sources.

Again though I ask, how would you expect OpenDemocracy, or any other source, to provide the evidence you're requesting, in a manner that does not result in them also publishing Wadhwa's home address? Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Surely a Wikipedia article which relates to persons living should never run the risk of regurgitating spurious un-evidenced claims or allegations and should therefore only include reference to well-evidenced facts, not based on assumptions or suppositions. Acoustamatix (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

spurious un-evidenced claims or allegations How could OpenDemocracy evidence this claim, to use your language, without also publishing Wadhwa's partial home address? Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

You have said in your reply "...where Linehan partially published her home address". Where is your evidence that your allegation is true? Do you have any verified source for the allegation that you have made? Acoustamatix (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd favor rewording it to be more attributed to Wadhwa, since it's unclear in the source whether the doxxing claim is made in the source's voice or Wadhwa's. Something like "Wadhwa said that Graham Linehan published part of her home address, leading her to fear for her life for the first time." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I support this suggestion. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I need to think more on this, maybe sleep on it. OpenDemocracy state plainly in their editorial voice that Linehan published Wadhwa's partial home address, in the sentence before Wadhwa's quote. Could they just be pre-emptively summarising what she said? Maybe, but that would be kinda off-tone with the rest of the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to parse. The source quote is "But the first time Wadhwa says she truly feared for her life was when Linehan published part of her home address." I can't tell if they mean to be using their own voice or summarizing Wadhwa's. Trying to play it on the safe side. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This is an unfounded & un-evidenced allegation which has been inappropriately reported as fact in the Wikipedia article, against the principles of this site. A re-wording would seem to be the least which could be done to avoid repeating any false allegation. Acoustamatix (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

You could be right. I'd ordinarily be inclined to parse it as something in their own voice, but I can kinda see the argument that it's an advance summary of the following quotations. I just need more time to think on it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

So upon further reflection, I still don't agree at all with what Acoustamatix has been saying. However I can see how the sentence prior to Wadhwa's quote could be interpreted as either a statement in the publication's own editorial voice, or a summarising of Whadwa's subsequent quote. I don't have an issue with re-attributing this more towards Wadhwa. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

My 2 cents is they seem to fairly obviously be saying it happened, though they could have been a little clearer. If OD was reporting on an allegation rather than a fact, I believe they'd have directly said something more along the lines of Wadhwa said that Graham Linehan published part of her home address, leading her to fear for her life for the first time, as they very clearly quote her throughout the rest of the article. By my reading the clauses seem independent: The first time A says she felt B was when C implies C - the the first time is implying a date/event delivered by C. For example, if a source says the first time YFNS says she truly rejoiced seeing a procession was when the first Christopher Street Liberation Day Rally marched through the village, it is a stretch to say the source is saying it's just my claim that the rally went through the village (ignore the ~50-year-wide anachronism lol). Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

it is clearly a huge mistake & negligent to include in this article a significant and disputed allegation of doxxing against a living individual (Graham Linehan - https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/1748741539730186617?t=zdlNRr2KM5AbiqhR-eAAaw&s=19) simply based on one single very poorly worded source reference sentence which relies on no clearly verified & triangulated facts but simply the unverifiable hearsay account from the actual subject of this article. It assumes & supposes, without proper grounds, that the source sentence is backed by an independently verified fact when there is no evidence for this and the accused individual has publicly denied the allegation multiple times, and this amounts to the subject of this article making up their own unverified & disputed accounts and to allow this to remain in the article is clearly biased & negligent. The article requires rewording to demonstrate that the unverifiable allegation is disputed or at the very least it should not be presented as an undisputed fact since it has no evidence to back it up but the account of the subject of the article. Acoustamatix (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

That would certainly appear to be a far more accurate representation of events as they can be independently seen to have occurred. Acoustamatix (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

As I have stated above, I agree with the suggestion made by Firefangledfeathers at 03:43 21 January 2024, i.e ”Wadhwa said that Graham Linehan published part of her home address, leading her to fear for her life for the first time." It is a BLP matter in respect of Graham Linehan that we are asserting in our article that he has doxxed somebody, but our source does not demonstrate that the claim has been investigated and found to be substantiated. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Here from the posting at RSN. My reading of the sentence in question was a description of what Wadhwa had said, but I can see that it is ambiguous. Given that this is a claim against a living person (and so BLP applies) I would suggest using cautious language. I would support Firefangledfeathers suggestion until a different source can be found. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

As it's ambiguous, I worry that in our attempt to be cautious we may be misrepresenting what the source said and presenting as a claim what they meant to state as a fact. How does everyone feel about cutting the Gordian Knot by quoting OpenDemocracy to preserve the ambiguity instead of calling it either way?

Something like: Open Democracy reported "the first time Wadhwa says she truly feared for her life was when Linehan published part of her home address Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I like that option, you're right that it removes ambiguity either way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this would also work for me. The only tweak I'd suggest would be to add the word "that" for grammatical reasons, so that it reads OpenDemocracy reported that "the first time Wadhwa... (addition in bold) Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree- the version proposed by YFNS states unambiguously that Linehan did dox Wadhwa. The version which has now been implemented by FFF is much better. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it states OpenDemocracy reported it. It's an attributed direct quotation from the article, and not in wikivoice. It sidesteps the ambiguity of whether this is a summary or assertion in their editorial voice, by simply directly quoting what they said. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

No it doesn’t – it says that Linehan published part of her home address. Since we agree – I think – that we don’t want to say in wikivoice that Lineham doxxed her, because this is not clear from the source, I don’t understand why you want to change the clear wording that Firefangledfeathers has implemented. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

it says that Linehan published part of her home address That is what the OpenDemocracy article states. The full quotation from the article before Wadhwa's comments is But the first time Wadhwa says she truly feared for her life was when Linehan published part of her home address.. All this proposal from YFNS does is omit the word but, while quoting the rest of the sentence as it appears in the article. That is why there is a quotation mark after the word reported, though YFNS did miss the closing quotation mark at the end of the quotation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn’t. It says that Wadhw says Linehan published part of her address. So if we say in wikivoice that Linehan published part of her address, then this is a BLP violation. You have not replied to my query as to what you object to in FFF’s wording. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

To confirm, are you're disputing that the OpenDemocracy article contains the text But the first time Wadhwa says she truly feared for her life was when Linehan published part of her home address? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused why anybody would advocate keeping a publicly disputed and serious allegation against a living person in the article just because of one very poorly parsed sentence in the source reference which clearly quotes the subject of the article as the source. Baffling. This clearly goes against the ethos of Wikipedia. 81.104.171.212 (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

sorry, wasn't logged in but this post above is from acoustamatix Acoustamatix (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I like this option too. Since we have some disagreement about how to parse the source's words, direct quotation is a safe bet. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem with saying Open Democracy reported that "the first time Wadhwa says she truly feared for her life was when Linehan published part of her home address” is that it says in wikivoice that Open Democracy reported that Linehan published part of her home address, whereas the actual Open Democracy text does not say this – it is ambiguous, but the most reasonable interpretation is that they are reporting that Wadwha said this. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, if the allegation is to be reported at all (and on balance I would personally recommend not including the allegation, simply so as to err on the side of caution in relation to a confusingly sourced & disputed allegation) then it should certainly be qualified to make it clear that it is the subject who is the potential source and that the allegation is disputed. Acoustamatix (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

August 2021 podcast controversy

Sources for the August 2021 podcast controversy:

• The Times: 11 August 2021
• The Herald: 12 August 2021, 13 August 2021
• The National: 12 December 2022
• UK Daily News: 18 December 2022

Are there any other sources on the podcast controversy that can be added to this list? Breadth of sources that are editorially independent of The Times and Herald will help demonstrate due weight, and help us with drafting a new version of this content that hopefully will have consensus. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Added UK Daily News source Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Another Herald that touches on it and more of her response: August 13 2022
• The Daily Record has a little discussion of JKR's clinic: February 4, 2023
• The Telegraph discusses a police complaint against a head of Brodie's trust over her comments on Wadhwa: January 30, 2022

A quick search shows practically no coverage outside of the Telegraph, Times, Herald, and Christian Institute. Also worth noting, most attributed most of the criticism of the comments to For Women Scotland and Fair Play for Women, and noted they'd also opposed her appointment to head of the ERCC for being trans. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I've added the second Herald article to the list. I'm not convinced on the Daily Record or Telegraph articles however, those are very brief passing mentions only. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"Are there any other sources on the podcast controversy that can be added to this list?"

That's something I've been trying to determine, too. Although it's possible that searching for Wadwha's name is the wrong way to identify sources for this story, The Scotsman, the National, The Courier, the Press and Journal, the Guardian, the Daily Record, the Daily Express, the Scottish Sun, and the Daily Mirror either did not cover this story at the time, removed what coverage or did not name Wadhwa in their coverage (and some do not appear to have run any stories about her at all). Afterwards: The National has the story of the 12th December; The Scotsman has a comment piece by Laura Waddell which discusses OpenDemocracy's coverage (28th of December) in connection to the GRR bill passing, and a comment piece from Susan Dalgety about Beira's place with unpleasant remarks about Wadhwa; the Daily Record has a piece that describes part of this to explain a police visit that's background to a story about someone's campaign to protect women who have suffered miscarriages through domestic abuse; the Daily Express summarises some while reporting on Fair Play For Women's attempt to get the EHRC to review the ERCC for hiring Wadhwa; the Guardian notes that Wadhwa is trans and runs ERCC in a story about Beira's place and an opinion piece by Susannah Rustin.

Not all of those papers are reputable or should be considered as reliable, and there are obvious issues with using things published as opinion pieces as sources. 90.242.228.84 (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's a few more, some passing mentions, not sure if all these are considered reliable by da communitah, a lot of 'conservative' media, trigger alerts, no PinkNews...

• The Critic

• The Critic again

• The Telegraph

• Washington Examiner

• Spiked

 Tewdar  15:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The Critic is probably not a reliable source. Though it's not been directly discussed at RSN, when it has been raised in relation to other sources, editors have remarked on its unreliability and position as an "openly astroturfed culture war paper". Spiked likewise is likely unreliable.

The Washington Examiner source only contains a very brief and highly partisan mention of Wadhwa. Telegraph also is a pretty brief mention. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

This [8] is an opinion piece which includes a reference to a comment by MW:A few days later Mridul Wadhwa, head of Edinburgh’s Rape Crisis Centre, echoed this by saying that opponents of self-ID are “very comfortable associating with fascists” which is linked to an article in the Times (to which I don’t have access). This comment is worthy of note and should be included in our article. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Go here for access. 😁 The Times article just says Last month Wadhwa claimed “bigoted” victims of sexual violence seeking help from the charity should expect to be “challenged on their prejudices” in an apparent comment on trans rights and women-only spaces  Tewdar  15:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but sorry, I don’t know how to make this work. But I would be surprised if Susanna Rustin was misquoting the Times. Are you sure you have the right article? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

https://archive.is/fnl9X TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Put the URL of the Times article into archive.today's search box, then click search.

Looking at the context of the Guardian's opinion piece, and the Times article it cites, these seem to be for unrelated comments made by Wadhwa at a webinar, and not the podcast. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Tewdar beat me to the archive.ph link, but the relevant text for that is speaking during a webinar organised by the Sheena Amos Youth Trust, a Sheffield-based LGBT rights charity, she said: “In the last few weeks . . . those who started off by saying that they have legitimate concerns about the reform of the Gender Recognition Act [GRA] and what that means for women’s spaces, more and more of them . . . [are] exposing themselves as being on the right and being very comfortable associating with fascists and those who would want to eliminate anybody who is not cisgendered [a person whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth] and white in our society. “There was a protest outside the Scottish parliament . . . organised by those who oppose GRA reform, but also by those within that group who oppose the existence of trans people.” An offhand comment that may or may not be due, more sources referring to it would help, especially ones with some more context on the protest. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, now found it. It includes She accepted there was no evidence that the organisers were directly linked to fascist organisations. And how about including some criticism of her Writing on Twitter, the women’s rights group added: “Then the disgraceful suggestion that the demo last week was joined by ‘fascists’. We have comprehensively debunked this lie . . . a desperate smear that Wadhwa should know will be used to justify harm and doesn’t care.” Sweet6970 (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Those comments seem to have been made at a webinar in September 2021, and not in the podcast. For content on the podcast controversy they do not seem to be of any use to us. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Then there should be a separate section for it. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the strength and depth of sourcing needed for a dedicated section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

More details of the protest are here. Graham Linehan, who doxxed her, attended. Speakers included Helen Joyce (from her article: In June 2022 PinkNews reported that Joyce had spoken in favour of "reducing or keeping down the number of people who transition" and that "every one of those people is a person who's been damaged" and "every one of those people is basically, you know, a huge problem to a sane world") and Johann Lamont (from her article: In the Scottish Parliament, the Labour Women’s Group, of which Lamont is a member, opposes protections for trans people being included in the Scottish Government’s Hate Crime bill, saying: "Cross-dressing is at best a fashion statement, and at worst the public enactment of a male fetish to wear women’s clothing, particularly lingerie. We do not think it should be protected in law.") Arguing that a minority is damaged and their population should be kept down doesn't exactly scream not fascistic. Neither does arguing that trans people should not be protected from hate crimes. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I get the impression that you do not accept that calling someone a fascist is a serious matter, and should not be used as a shorthand for ‘I don’t like your views’. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I consider it a very serious matter and not a term I use lightly. The only one here not taking fascism seriously is the one who thinks "I think this entire minority is damaged and their population should be controlled and kept down" is not a a fascistic thing to say at all and just a view I don't like. Fun fact, in the US states are making it illegal to be transgender in public, to transition, and are compiling lists of trans people for investigation. Federal legislators want to implement even worse and do things like prohibit teachers from acknowledging that trans people exist from elementary to graduate school. The whole anti-trans movement is just fascism's latest face. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. That’s not a bad summary description. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sweet6970 and TheTranarchist: can we stay on topic please? If you wish to discuss links between fascism and transphobia could you please do it on one of your talk pages? Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ, you can't tirade against other sources that are listed as reputable, calling them transphobic and biased, and then cite The Trans Safety Network and Pink News as sources. That's not how this works. You say you don't know how you'd like to see the article changed, only that you want to stress that the criticism against Wadhwa extends "all to bigotry" and that's also not how this works, because it's not true. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Lol, those sources were explicitly mentioned in a reliable source to have joined in the dogpile against Wadhwa and already had a reputation for transphobia. Last I checked, Pink News and Trans Safety Network (which was only included because Open Democracy referred to their research) don't have a reputation for demonizing a minority for simply existing. I have said how I'd like to see the article changed, feel free to scroll up. Also, the quote literally says all bigotry and mentions racism and transphobia: the fact TERFs just got mad about the fact transphobia was included doesn't mean her statement didn't extend to all forms of bigotry, so to say otherwise or omit it and misrepresent her statements as only about trans people is not how this works, because it's not true. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

At this point, you seem to be advocacy editing. Wadhwa is a controversial figure who requires a balanced article, but at this point, I don't get the sense that you're interested in editing in good faith or even trying to maintain a neutral point of view. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You can take conduct concerns elsewhere. Wadhwa's statement that her comments were about multiple forms of bigotry is due for inclusion. I'm not sure what your reasons are for believing it's not true, but we're more concerned with verifiability anyway. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Scratch that, misread as "all criticism of Wadhwa extends to bigotry," please disregard. The inclusion of Wadhwa's statement is fine. The article omitting all controversy or criticism against Wadhwa, despite being relevant to the greater situation, is less fine. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

We are discussing the weight of that "controversy" and how to include it - your repeated insistence that we are trying to omit controversy and criticism would be better served by actually suggesting improvements to the content so it can be re-integrated instead of accusing people who disagree with you of advocacy editing while offering nothing of value to the discussion. Also, you do realize I added more details of the harassment campaign against her than had previously been in the article (which had only one small paragraph about how it forced the ERCC into lockdown), right? Hardly hiding or omitting "controversy". Re-working 3 paragraphs devoted solely to criticisms of a cherry-picked version of a single quote from her into something that accurately reflects the "controversy", what she said and who reacted, is just good editing, not the Orwellian censorship you seem determined to think it is. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I've been tweaking the article ever since December in an effort to make it more balanced without whitewashing Wadhwa and welcoming the inclusion of more neutral sources, but by all means, continue tell me how I've offered nothing of value to the discussion. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I hadn't realized you'd been the one to add the 3 paragraph controversy section that used poor citation format and oddly-placed primary sources to document a single statement through cherry-picked quotes in the name of "balance" - while not including details of the large-scale harassment campaign she was subject to, since obviously TERFs getting mad about someone stating bigotry/transphobia is bad deserves that much coverage to "balance" the article. That also doesn't change the fact you never actually discussed any improvements to the section on this talk page, just repeatedly insisted that the content should stay without thoughts on how to make it more neutral, and used personal attacks and accusations of whitewashing against those who have been trying to make the section more neutral and in accordance with WP:DUE. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

And you've screamed about TERFs and fascists and how Pink News is an unbiased source. Good job. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

1) Only TERFs took issue with her statement, nobody else cared, 2) someone tried to claim no fascists had been present at the rally, I pointed out the fascistic statements made by a speaker, 3) Pink News is considered a reliable source, more to the point it was never actually used in this section we're discussing and is only used to say she was a candidate in an election in this article, so I've no clue why you keep bringing that up when it's completely irrelevant to anything discussed, and 4) I actually proposed improvements and noted the issues with the section in depth, while you've seemed to ignore all points raised in favor of attacking strawmen. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Whatever keeps you warm at night. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Are there any other reliable sources that we've missed on the podcast controversy? So far we've found only one that is independent from The Times and Herald, which is The National, who cover the controversy in two short paragraphs with a quotation in the middle. This isn't really demonstrating depth and breadth of coverage. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm still looking, but I think we should be careful about lumping "The Times and the Herald" together into one lump entity. The OpenDemocracy article does, but we're not the OpenDemocracy article, and they're entirely different news outlets with differing political alignments (center-right and center-left, respectively). Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, the political alignments of The Times and Herald are not the problem here. That they have both been factually noted as being part of the attacks in the press against Wadhwa suggests that we need to weigh them very carefully when assessing how to balance the coverage of the podcast incident. Both The Times and Herald have taken a strongly negative editorial stance against Wadhwa, that might be justified and that might not. A wider array of reliable sources on the fallout from the podcast, which are editorial independent from either or both The Times and Herald, makes it easier for us to figure out what (if any) content is due for covering and how much editorial space we should afford it.

There's a few key questions to ask. Are The Times and Herald two media organisations speaking alone into a void on this incident? Or are they just two of the voices covering it? If there are other sources who cover it, how do they do so? Is it similar in tone to the coverage in The Times and/or Herald? Or are they more sympathetic to Wadhwa? Or do they denounce the coverage in The Times and/or Herald? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

They have not been "factually noted as being part of the attacks." The writer of the OpenDemocracy article considered them attacks, but both are listed as reputable Wikipedia sources, both included defenses of MW and the clinic in their reporting, and nothing said by either organization was untrue. A slightly more critical tone doesn't constitute an attack. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Look, we could spar all day on whether or not the OpenDemocracy article is factual reporting, but that won't change the fact that however you wish to describe the coverage in The Times and Herald, it is to use your terms critical of Wadhwa.

What we need to determine before we can draft the content that could appear in this article is whether or not that coverage is isolated to those two sources and is not something other sources are discussing, or if it's something being stated by multiple other reliable sources for which The Times and Herald are two voices among many, or if it's something that The Times and Herald are reporting on in a different way than other sources (ie, they're negative of Wadhwa, other sources are positive).

In policy terms we need to determine if this critical reporting is a viewpoint that is held in the majority, or one that is held by a significant minority, or one that is held by an extremely small minority. We can only do that by knowing the full breadth and depth of all reliable sources about this controversy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Clearly it isn't an extremely small, inconsequential minority, because it upset some people sufficiently enough that they created an entirely new rape crisis center. Dr. Jessica Taylor, a sexual violence expert unaffiliated with either organization, weighed in independently. It was a very big deal, and we can get that across without downplaying past harassment or treating the incident as a tiny, tacked on footnote. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

If that is the case, then it will be easy to demonstrate that with a breadth of sources. Are there any other reliable sources that have covered the controversy surrounding this podcast appearance? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

https://ukdaily.news/glasgow/nicola-sturgeon-vs-jk-rowling-the-lightning-rods-in-scotlands-bitter-war-of-the-sexes-46870.html

Got another. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Great. It has a very brief two sentence paragraph about the controversy, and doesn't mention Taylor. I'll add it to the list at the top of the section. What other sources are there? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"Look, we could spar all day on whether or not the OpenDemocracy article is factual reporting, but"

I'd say the question of whether or not the OpenDemocracy article is factual reporting is absolutely one we'd better sort out right now if we're going to be citing them in articles. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing resembles the 'Harassment' section, which demonstrates a similar level of depth and breadth of coverage. Throw both sections overboard with the rest of the WP:FLOTSAMANDJETSAM, I say! 😁👍  Tewdar  20:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The harassment section actually has a breadth and depth of coverage to it to suggest that it is due.

In addition to the OpenDemocracy and Trans Safety Network articles, gal-dem wrote an article about the abuse Wadhwa received in February 2021, both Impact and The National in their coverage of Beira's Place refer to the harassment and the OpenDemocracy article covering it, as does at least one columnist in The Scotsman. UK Daily have their own article about the abuse directed at Wadhwa, and other trans-inclusive feminist organisations in Scotland by For Women Scotland. And The Mary Sue touches briefly on the harassment against ERRC.

The podcast section has one RS that is editorially independent from The Times and Herald. The harassment section has five that are independent from OpenDemocracy and the Trans Safety Network. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's another source for you then...  Tewdar  23:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Spectator Australia shares the same problems as The Spectator, consisting primarily of opinion pieces and not factual reporting. It also has only a single sentence on Wadhwa, and seems to intentionally misgender her in that. So it's not really helpful here I'm afraid. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

You just referenced not one, but two opinion pieces written by gal-dem, and an opinion piece by The Mary Sue. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The gal-dem article is not an opinion piece. It is categorised as "investigations" and "politics". Opinion pieces in that publication are categorised under "life" or "first person".

Likewise The Mary Sue tags their opinion articles as such, and this one isn't tagged as an opinion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The Mary Sue site nearly crashed my phone with all the ads, but e.g. this article doesn't seem to be 'tagged as an opinion' anywhere, nor even this piece on 'Gandalf's Big Naturals'. Can you give me an example of one that is tagged, or point out where to find such a tag if I'm missing something?  Tewdar  09:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed improvements to podcast statement inclusion

Concerns:

Weight and attribution: that the Times and the Herald were the ones who wrote the critical articles should be mentioned, as the article/RS sources state they were part of the harassment campaign against her

What she said: Should be accurately represented, not taken out of context and cherry-picked

Who actually cared about this: For Women Scotland & JK Rowling.

Recommended new text (cited to the Times,National, and both Heralds):

The Herald and The Times reported that in an interview on the Guilty Feminist Podcast, Wadhwa stated:

So we might have fear of men of a certain ethnicity, we mighty have fear of trans people. Sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. But these spaces are also for you. But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices.

For Women Scotland accused Wadhwa of distressing rape survivors. JK Rowling stated Wadhwa's comments inspired her to create Beira's Place, a support center for cisgender women only; Susan Smith, director of For Women Scotland, is also on the board. The ERCC and Wadhwa later issued a statement that her words had been taken out of context and that "if we want to be a truly feminist organisation, we too need to be an anti-racist organisation, we need to be an organisation that stands up to homophobia, ableism, classism and yes, transphobia. This is the bigotry I referred to in the podcast."

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and merged this with the previously agreed upon page in a way that I believe gives weight to the controversy and the fallout, but in a clearer way that's less construable as cherry picking. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Strongly oppose this blockquote as presented, which synthesizes from a variety of sources in such a way that it deviates from the original podcast structure (not content, so don't bother pointing that out) significantly. Missing text isn't even elided.  Tewdar  08:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

My mistake, I'd based the blockquote off the wording in the Times/Herald which seemed to imply they were fully consecutive statements. If the FWS transcript is to be believed, the original quote is: So we might have fear of men of a certain ethnicity, we might have fear of trans people, and it could be linked to an experience of trauma. I think it is, it is okay to hold those things as long as you are willing to acknowledge that, in support, we will accept that. But there is a difference also when, and I am not sure if I said this as clearly and transparently as I want to, but I’m trying. Apologies, if I haven't done it well. But I think the other thing is that sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. And so, you know, it is not discerning crime. But these spaces are also for you. But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices

I am more partial to a summary of what she said, but if we must include the blockquote, the version with proper ellipses is:

So we might have fear of men of a certain ethnicity, we might have fear of trans people, and it could be linked to an experience of trauma. I think it is, it is okay to hold those things as long as you are willing to acknowledge that, in support, we will accept that ... the other thing is that sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. And so, you know, it is not discerning crime. But these spaces are also for you. But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

While it's an improvement from the previous version, I still question if this amount of content is due based on the lack of breadth of reliable sources that actually discuss this? Though perhaps I'm seeing more than there is because of the blockquote? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's due. Maybe it wouldn't have been before Beira's Place, but regardless of where you stand on it, it's the reason Edinburgh now has two rape centers where it used to have one. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I support the version by Beforesunsethighnoon. Sweet6970 (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

No. Beforesunsethighnoon's version, while a slight improvement over what was previously in the article, has some of the same issues as the original. There's too much emphasis on the anonymous expert, and Jessica Taylor's comments, both of which only appear in The Herald's coverage. When looking at the scant amount of broader coverage, those comments seem non-noteworthy. It also has weight issues in so far as it's three lengthy paragraphs, whereas sources that are not The Times and Herald cover the podcast comments in one or two short paragraphs.

When comparing it directly against TheTranarchist's version above, while I still have concerns about the section as a whole being undue due to the lack of widespread coverage, the length of the non-blockquote content is more in line with how few sources other than The Times and Herald cover this controversy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The "anonymous expert" I can see losing, but I think Jessica Taylor's comments -- which she also posted on Twitter -- are extremely significant. She's a notable person, also in the field, has also been attacked by the alt-right, who isn't JK Rowling or a random Twitter bystander. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

If it's significant, then other sources than The Herald will have covered it. Do any other reliable sources quote Taylor's comments on this issue? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, the fact that it was cited in The Herald and The Herald was faintly critical in tone does not mean the Herald suddenly becomes a disreputable source. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Even if we take The Herald as a perfectly reputable source, Taylor's view could easily be undue here. The much more due negative reaction is Rowling's. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

As I've said a couple of times now, both in this section and the one above, the question isn't on the reliability of The Times or Herald as a source. The question is one of due weight. If Taylor's view is notable and due for inclusion, then more than one editorially independent source will have covered it. Do any other reliable sources quote Taylor's comments on this issue? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this helps resolve the issues of synthesis and of failing to acknowledge the source of the criticism that kicked off the controversy. I imagine another editor would reject the idea that we acknowledge that that source had previously threatened to sue the SNP for letting Wadhwa run as a candidate and it would make this section longer. Given the limited reliable sources, the BLP’s expectation that we write conservatively, consider harm and avoid victimisation. 90.242.228.84 (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

In general, I prefer the version by Beforesunsethighnoon.

But I think it is appropriate to start with In 2021, the Herald and The Times reported that… as in TT’s draft.

It is important that the comments by Jessica Taylor should be included, as in Bsshn’s version. Since MW claims to have been taken out of context, I think we should also quote Taylor’s tweet, which starts: Having listened to the entire interview with Mridul and goes on ….one of my main concerns was the focus on ‘challenging bigoted beliefs’ being argued as necessary to process trauma, which isn’t true at all - and ‘bigoted’ is subjective in this context. It’s not trauma informed or therapeutic. We have agreed that MW’s full quote should be included – we should do the same for Jessica Taylor.

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

That's just a segment of her tweet, the full thing would be too long and undue to include. What sticks out here is that her objection is primarily to the idea that trans women work in and use crisis centers, as hinted at by her claim "'bigoted' is subjective", so if we quote her tweet the most relevant part is: It’s scary to hear someone say that women subjected to rape who want a female-only space are bigots who need re-educating during therapy. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

"Bigoted" in this case is subjective, because all of this centers around rape victims and a rape crisis clinic, where what constitutes a bigoted belief is inherently blurrier. It's why all of this happened and why we're here now. That said, I think it's much better to just quote the "It's scary to hear..." part than no quote at all. If that's what it takes for everyone to be happy, I'm fine with that. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:DUE starts:Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.It does not say (as Sideswipe has said) : If Taylor's view is notable and due for inclusion, then more than one editorially independent source will have covered it. Nor does it say that a fact (the views of Jessica Taylor) are to be excluded because it is reported in one reliable source. (Most of this section of NPOV is not actually directly relevant to our discussion, because it is about representing different opinions on a controversial matter, not reporting facts.) So there is no justification for excluding a fact which has been reported in a reliable source. The question is one of general editorial judgment, as to how much of Taylor’s views should be given in our article. I think it is important to record her statement that she listened to the entire podcast. So I suggest: Jessica Taylor, who said that she had listened to the entire podcast, said: "It is of concern to me that any rape centre would take the view that their clients who access their services at a time of crisis and trauma, would need politically re-educating so they agree with the views of the CEO and centre policies. This isn't person centred working." Sweet6970 (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

My editorial judgment is that such a lengthy quote from Taylor is undue. We should mention the overall critical response to her comments and Rowling's citation of them in starting Beira's Place, as those points tend to have more prominence in the body of reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

What wording do you suggest? Sweet6970 (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

On mobile now but I can suggest something in the next half day or so. I think Tranarchist's draft is closer than Before's. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem with that is that TT’s version excludes any mention of the criticism by Jessica Taylor,, and Taylor is a relevant expert. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we need to include the quote in some form, or the controversy section seems like a footnote and it gives the impression that JK Rowling was the only one who responded to the podcast. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I think I'd go for something like:

Wadhwa's comments were criticized, including by the group For Women Scotland and sexual violence researcher Jessica Taylor. JK Rowling stated that Wadhwa's comments inspired her to create Beira's Place, a support center for cisgender women only. The ERCC and Wadhwa later said in a statement that her words had been taken out of context and that her comments about bigotry were intended to encompass multiple forms, including homophobia, racism, and transphobia.

It mentions Taylor but not her quote, shortens Wahwa's response, and cuts some detail elsewhere. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, is this a drop-in replacement for the paragraph of TheTranarchist's draft after the blockquote from Wadhwa? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. If I thought we could get away with trimming any part of the blockquote, I'd go for that too. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

As a replacement for that end paragraph this works for me. I'm not convinced that mentioning Taylor is due, as even between the Times and Herald Taylor's commentary is only reported in one of the two publications. The primary elements of note in this controversy are that Wadhwa said something in a podcast that some people found controversial, and that Rowling took inspiration from this to create her own support centre. But as a compromise between not including it at all, and the lengthy quotations in any of the prior versions of this text, I think this minimal mention, with citation to the original reporting is OK.

As for trimming Wadhwa's blockquote, we could paraphrase it into wikivoice. It's a difficult quotation to summarise accurately however without running into the same issue surrounding taking Wadhwa's words out of context.

The only remaining questions then for me are: will this be a separate section from the harassment section? If so, what will it be titled? Or will we add it somewhere in the harassment section? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

One other question, in the blockquote from Wadhwa are we sure that she said "mighty" and not "might" in the sentence we mighty have fear of trans people? Or is this a transcription error of the podcast commnets? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Just listened to the podcast. The relevant section starts around 1 hour 18 mins into it. Wadhwa does say "might" and not "mighty", so we might want to stick a {{sic}} template into the quotation at that point, if we think it's not something that we can just silently correct? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Silently correct! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it makes sense for this section to be placed after paragraph 2 and before paragraph 3 of the preceding section. Separating this controversy from the harassment (given the source of the criticism, the consequences of their behaviour, and that the harassment section already includes the threats, intimidation and abuse that followed) decontextualises it. Separation has also lead to people trying to expand it purely on the basis that it's not long enough, against expectations of conservative editorship set out in the BLP.

As Mridul Wadhwa said, "we might have fear of men of a certain ethnicity, we mighty have fear of trans people ... Sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. It is not a discerning crime. But these spaces are also for you. But if you bring unacceptable beliefs…" in the podcast, and "If we want to be a truly feminist organisation, we too need to be an anti-racist organisation, we need to be an organisation that stands up to homophobia, ableism, classism and yes, transphobia. This is the bigotry I referred to in the podcast" I think it's odd to summarise her as saying her comments were "intended to encompass multiple forms" of bigotry. They were explicitly addressed multiple forms. 90.242.228.84 (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I also wouldn't bother with Taylor. Her comments weren't noteworthy enough to be covered elsewhere and, perhaps troublingly, statements from those who directly work in these services were not considered noteworthy enough to report on at all 90.242.228.84 (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to Firefangledfeathers for producing this. I would prefer if there was more inf about why MW was criticised, but I have been trying to work out a summary of Jessica Taylor’s comments, and it feels like I am cherry picking. If we are to have something this brief, it is an excellent summary.

I see that Sideswipe has suggested summarising the MW quote in wikivoice. I am opposed to this. The original complaint about the established wording on this was that it misrepresented what MW said by, in effect, oversummarising. By giving the full quote, we are not in danger of misrepresenting her views.

So – I would prefer to have the full quote from Jessica Taylor, but Fff’s version is my second choice.

Sweet6970 (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

By giving the full quote, we are not in danger of misrepresenting her views That's certainly true. And I think even if we were to try and trim that quotation using ellipses, we'd run into the same problem of potentially misrepresenting Wadhwa's views. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the block quote is fine and speaks for itself. I don't think this should be placed in "harassment," as it implies that this entire incident was synonymous with harassment. Maybe something less inflammatory than "controversy," or we rename the harassment section entirely to something more generalized.

As Sweet6970 said, Taylor is an expert and Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. So she definitely warrants inclusion, and while I'd also prefer the full quote, I'd accept Ftff's version. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the block quote is fine and speaks for itself. I don't think this should be placed in "harassment," as it implies that this entire incident was synonymous with harassment.

The harassment section is written linearly, it describes actions of an organisation whose criticisms of Wadhwa appear in all the sources about this incident and paragraphs 3-5 are about how that group used twitter and this incident to intensify Wadhwa’s harassment; the abuse being condemned; and Wadhwa and her employer consulting with the police and changing how accessible they were to survivors of sexual violence as a result.

Taylor is exceptional: appearing in one source and not having formal links to that campaign. Does that justify a separate section which disconnects this event from the harassment that predates it, that flowed through it, seized on it and resulted in the subject and her employer having to install additional security measures? 90.242.228.84 (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Why not just dump it at the end of the first paragraph in the 'Work' section? It's work related, isn't it?  Tewdar  09:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Because as we covered earlier, how others have attacked her for things she's said is not suitable for a section devoted to her work, that's we created a harassment section to detail the harassment campaign she received. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The proposed content says nothing about harassment. Perhaps you'd like to propose some additional content describing the criticism as part of a harassment campaign?  Tewdar  15:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Chronologically the podcast appearance occurred 8 days prior to the hashtag activity (podcast was released on 2 August 2021, hashtag activity on 10 August 2021). If we were to put it into the harassment section, it would need to go before the hashtag paragraph to maintain chronological order.

This is a tough bit of content to fit in. I'm not sure adding it to the harassment section works, while Wadhwa was harassed on Twitter because of her commentary in the podcast, the sourcing we have for the content doesn't explicitly make that link. Adding it to its own stand-alone section is very much a undue, as from the sourcing we have the controversy was not widely covered in that level of detail. Adding it to the end of the work section could maybe work, but it's unclear both in the podcast and the secondary sourcing whether Wadhwa was appearing in her personal capacity, or as an activist/campaigner, or in an official sense as director of the ERRC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Wadhwa receiving blowblack after making a controversial statement is not in and of itself a harassment campaign; we have five reputable, balanced sources on it. In keeping with Wikipedia's policy on criticism, I still think the best compromise would be to give it its own section and title it something less volatile, like "Guilty Feminist Podcast Appearance" or "Podcast Appearance and Response" or something. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, we have some sources that published "criticisms" of her statement, and a reliable source that commented on the coverage directly and classified it as harassment. That the blowback was primarily from an organization known for opposing transgender rights in general and arguing that Wadhwa in particular should not be considered a woman is vital context. In this regards the sources criticizing her are primary sources for the criticisms, the Open Democracy coverage is a secondary source for the criticisms and their context.

Open Democracy states: One of the main groups leading these attacks is For Women Scotland, whose Twitter account has repeatedly promoted the hashtag #AskRapeCrisisScotland, and stories about Mridul Wadhwa. "stories" links to a twitter search for posts from FWS about Wadhwa (?q=mridul%20wadhwa%20(from%3Aforwomenscot)&src=typed_query&f=live). Since they've posted about her since that article, we modify the search to show posts prior to the publication date (Oct 17, 2022) to see what they were referring to (?q=mridul%20wadhwa%20(from%3Aforwomenscot)%20until%3A2022-10-17&src=typed_query&f=live). Lo and behold, a Telegraph article criticizing Wadhwa for her comment is the first result and the next few are all attacking her over her comment and saying since she's trans she should not have the ERCC position.

P.S. I am prevented from linking directly, so the search portion of the url is included. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's a thought. Maybe we shouldn't base the entirety of the article and the validity of all other published sources on the opinion of OpenDemocracy, which doesn't even describe itself as a news source, but a media platform.

None of the sources we've collected, which Sideswipe has archived at the top of the page, misgender Wadhwa and none are abusive. At the moment, some of them are more balanced than the article as it presently stands. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Wait, so you're going to write Wadhwa's comments were criticized, and by whom, and Wahwa's response to this mysterious criticism, but not include a single word of what the criticism actually was? Surely I must be missing something again here?  Tewdar  09:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. It was significant enough for Wadhwa to respond to it ("All support is survivor centred, as it should be"), so that alone warrants its inclusion. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be the whole quote or anything, even Jessica Taylor expressed concern that a rape centre would find it necessary to politically re-educate its clients or something would be better than nothing, although it fails to anticipate Wadhwa's response if you leave out the 'person centred working' part.  Tewdar  09:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The criticism boils down to: "she said the centre will treat anyone but you can't walk in being a bigot and not be challenged on it - this is literally political re-education and ideology being shoved down our throats if we can't walk in demanding trans people can't work there or use their services". If she had just mentioned racism and people had responded the same, nobody would take these "criticisms" seriously, but god forbid the British press recognize transphobia as a form of bigotry.

Dr Taylor's comments are not especially notable, but, like For Women Scotland, the criticism boiled down to saying there's nothing wrong with demanding crisis centres neither hire nor admit trans people, if we take the quote It’s scary to hear someone say that women subjected to rape who want a female-only space are bigots who need re-educating during therapy at face value. If we are going to mention what she said, and for the record I'm not even sure if she warrants mention, an appropriate summary would be Wadhwa's comments were criticized in the Herald by the group For Women Scotland and sexual violence researcher Jessica Taylor, who both said it is not bigotry to ask for "female-only" spaces and counseling.

Also, this should go in the Harassment section, since OpenDemocracy described the harassment she received from the Herald, and the only articles the Herald published about her were those objecting to her statement on these spurious grounds.

The blockquote can be trimmed to a summary - the issue was less that it was summarized in the original version and more so that it was incredibly cherry-picked. It would be best to still include a citation with a quote containing the material currently in the blockquote.

For context, the original text was Wadhwa stated that "Sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well," that rape survivors could not heal without addressing "unacceptable beliefs" and that if they sought care at the Edinburgh clinic, they should "expect to be challenged on [their] prejudices.", which quotes an irrelevant obvious fact, scarequotes "unacceptable beliefs", and says they can be expect to be challenged on their prejudices, without once noting she said the center is open to everyone and that the "unacceptable beliefs" were racism and transphobia.

In total, the section should be:

The Herald and The Times reported that in an interview on the Guilty Feminist Podcast, Wadhwa stated that counseling is available to everyone and that people expressing bigoted attitudes such as racism and transphobia would still be helped but challenged on their beliefs. They reported that Wadhwa's comments were criticized by the group For Women Scotland and sexual violence researcher Jessica Taylor, who both said it is not bigotry to ask for "female-only" spaces and counseling. JK Rowling later stated Wadhwa's comments inspired her to create Beira's Place, a support center for cisgender women only; Susan Smith, director of For Women Scotland, is also on the board. The ERCC and Wadhwa later issued a statement defending her comment, stating that her words had been taken out of context and that the bigotry she mentioned in the podcast included racism, homophobia, ableism, classism, and transphobia. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I very much disagree – the quote from MW should be given in full: the abbreviated version given by TT above is a massively sanitised version/misinterpretation of what she actually said. The original complaint was that the summary of what MW said was inaccurate, but it much better represented what MW said than TT’s summary.

Also, I am in favour of giving information about what Jessica Taylor said, and I support Tewdar’s suggested wording.

Sweet6970 (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

How is it a "sanitized" version? What material present in the blockquote has been "sanitized out"? The original version was absolutely not a better representation of what she said, for the reasons noted above, most glaringly starting by quoting a statement that nobody would disagree with and to my knowledge nobody has and failing to at all mention he comments were about various forms of bigotry. Also, as I stated, the full quote should still be added as a quote sourced to a reference.

Tewdar's suggested wording should under no circumstances be put in wikivoice. For a start, we should not put that the center needed to "politically re-educate" people in wikivoice, it should be a quote if we are to include it. Further, it completely glosses over the fact that her comments were explicitly in regards to trans people, not the other forms of bigotry mentioned. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer a quote myself, too.  Tewdar  16:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I think your synthesis is fair and clear. I think those that differ might feel the second person pronoun makes what Wadhwa said seem accusative? I think there is an argument that the full quote would be easier to maintain in the long term. 90.242.228.84 (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

While I'm still mildly in favour of the blockquote at this time, because of the difficulty in summarising it, I'm curious as to what parts of Wadhwa stated that counseling is available to everyone and that people expressing bigoted attitudes such as racism and transphobia would still be helped but challenged on their beliefs. are a misrepresentation of the blockquote. Chunking it down:

• Wadhwa stated that counseling is available to everyone maps to But these spaces are also for you.
• that people expressing bigoted attitudes such as racism and transphobia maps to So we might have fear of men of a certain ethnicity, we might have fear of trans people. and But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature
• would still be helped maps to we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma
• but challenged on their beliefs. maps to But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices.

Have I missed something here that makes it as you say a misrepresentation? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t accept any of your ‘maps’. And I know of no reason why the full quote should not be included in the article. I am generally in favour of including full quotes in any contentious matter, because they are likely to be summarised in different ways by different people. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok that's fair, you don't have to accept my analysis. However you've said that the summary by TheTranarchist is a massively sanitised version/misinterpretation of what she actually said. Can you please provide your own analysis for how this is a misrepresentation? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

...people expressing bigoted attitudes such as racism and transphobia - please point out which part of the podcast implies the emphasised word. Given the, erm, "difficulties" in summarising the interview, I can only agree a blockquote is necessary.  Tewdar  16:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

From the Herald August 13th, Wadhwa is quoted as saying: If what we see/hear from someone is clearly prejudiced and we are not responding to their urgent support need it is also part of our role to provide a space to explore and challenge this, in as kind a way as possible. Generally speaking, nobody has a magical bigotry detector to immediately tell if someone is a bigot or not, the only way to judge that is by their actions and what they've expressed. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Your original version states that in an interview on the Guilty Feminist Podcast, Wadhwa stated that counseling is available to everyone and that people expressing bigoted attitudes, but this was actually not clarified until after the podcast. Probably a clarification was needed because the original podcast could be interpreted to mean 'mandatory political re-education before crisis counselling' or something.  Tewdar  17:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

So we might have fear of men of a certain ethnicity, we mighty have fear of trans people. Sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. But these spaces are also for you. But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices

If what we see/hear from someone is clearly prejudiced and we are not responding to their urgent support need it is also part of our role to provide a space to explore and challenge this, in as kind a way as possible.

It could be interpreted as 'mandatory political re-education before crisis counselling', but only if you were going out of your way to distort what she said to make her look bad. The main criticisms were pointedly not about bigotry in general, though that was explicit in her statement, but that she included transphobia as a form of bigotry. Shockingly, the biggest critic was a group that has repeatedly argued that she should not be able to head the ERCC or be considered a woman by the SNP. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the second blockquote is not from the podcast, but from this clarification. Please stop combining sources.  Tewdar  17:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

My mistake, I'd misread the Herald article. My comment and highlighted sections of the first blockquote could stand without it. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Susan Smith, director of For Women Scotland, is also on the board - what the fuck?!  Tewdar  16:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Is that incorrect? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems a bit irrelevant for this article/section to me!  Tewdar  17:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

That JKR co-founded an organization supposedly as a response to Wadhwa's statement alongside the founder of an organization that's been relentlessly criticizing Wadhwa and particularly that statement seems due, no? For the record, I could sadly not find RS mentioning it, but FWS also objected to her being appointed head of the ERCC... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I could sadly not find RS mentioning it - other Wikipedians don't seem to have thought it necessary to mention Smith in this context until now, either. Hmm. I wonder why that is.  Tewdar  17:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm genuinely struggling to understand what you're going on about. A reliable source noted that she is also a board member. The Christian Institute ran an article about a FWS statement objecting to Wadhwa being appointed head of the ERCC, which is what I was referring to, so I'm not sure why you quoted that tidbit in relation to Smith as that's additional context not the main argument. That FWS was in other ways involved in her harassment is already covered in the article. Not sure which "other wikipedians" you're referring to, as none have seemed to object to that detail thus far. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Look, I personally couldn't really give a tuppenny chew if you list Smith or all the cleaning staff of Rowling's latest distraction. It just looks like stupid and un-encyclopaedic coatrack to me.  Tewdar  17:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

FWS made a public statement condeming Wadhwa's statement; JKR publicly condemned it as well; JKR and Smith, who founded FWS, decided to found a center for cis women only. There's a bit of a difference between those highly related statements and just listing "all the cleaning staff" TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I bet you can't get a single editor (including Sideswipe and Newimpartial) to agree that we should add Susan Smith, director of For Women Scotland, is also on the board to that paragraph.  Tewdar  18:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

You're right about me at least. There's the obvious coatrack issue, and when looking at the sourcing for this article she's even more undue that I find Taylor's commentary. The only articles I think it would be relevant to mention Smith's connection to Beira's Place would be on Smith's article (if she has one) and the article for Beira's Place. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I think coatrack overstates it, but it does feel like an offshoot of an offshoot. 90.242.228.84 (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Unless she came out and commented on the podcast incident directly, gonna be a no to Susan Smith from me. Only Taylor and Rowling did. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion under this section has veered into a cul-de-sac. Meanwhile, our readers are being deprived of relevant information about the subject of the article. My reading of the overall situation is: There is general support for including the full quote by MW. There is disagreement about the way to cover the comments about this. So – who supports (a) Firefangledfeathers’ draft (b) Tewdar’s draft (c) the full quote from Jessica Taylor? My preference is (c) first choice (b) second choice (a) third choice. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Only other disagreement that you missed is what section to put this content in, if any. Whether it goes into the harassment section before the paragraph on the hashtag, at the end of the work section, or into its own section.

With regards to the phrasing, Firefangledfeather's draft with the summary of the block quote by TheTranarchist or with the block quote, are about even pegging for me. It would help me understand Sweet6970, and possibly reconsider how I feel about those two options if I agree with your reasoning, if you could please explain why you found TT's summary a massively sanitised version/misinterpretation of what she actually said. I still strongly believe that the full quotation from Taylor is undue, so I would oppose that in any version.

Could you also link or give the timestamp to Tewdar's draft please? I don't see a draft by Tewdar in this or any of the other sections, except for the blah blah blah one below. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I gave a very rough suggested summary of Taylor's criticism at "09:35, 11 February 2023". I wouldn't call it a serious proposal really, more of a reflex of having seen proposed wording that says Wadhwa was criticized, and Wahwa's response, but none of the actual criticism. I'd prefer to quote Taylor in some way.  Tewdar  22:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Tewdar, seeing that now.

I'm afraid that while it is better than the full quotation from Taylor, I think it too is ultimately undue due to the lack of other sources covering it. So I would oppose Tewdar's draft. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not a draft. I don't think we can say 'Wadhwa was criticised' and have no mention of the actual criticism whatsoever, that's stupid!  Tewdar  22:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Why not? When looking at the sources that are independent from The Times and Herald (Daily Record, The Telegraph ), that is about the level of detail they cover it in. Were it not for Rowling citing the podcast commentary as her inspiration for Beira's Place, the podcast criticism would not be noteworthy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Wadhwa later said in a statement that her words had been taken out of context and that her comments about bigotry were intended to encompass multiple forms, including homophobia, racism, and transphobia --> Wadhwa later issued a partial retraction, then? No? Didn't think so...  Tewdar  22:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps ironically or unintentionally you're making a stronger argument here for not including the content on the podcast controversy, than for changing the wording on it.

That said, I have a suspicion here that there's a source I'm missing with regards to that sentence. Alas I've been up to my eyes drafting content for another article so I can't seem to find it. Perhaps @Firefangledfeathers: can help here as the original drafter of that bit? The two sources that I posted were with regards to the sentence on Wadhwa being criticised only. Different sentences can have different contexts (hohoho) and sourcing after all. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

That's nonsensical. The fact that Wadhwa had to make a second statement responding to the controversy generated by the first is grounds for including both, and the source of the controversy.

My vote is for full quote, Tewdar, and Firefangledfeathers, in that order. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with "Wadhwa later issued a partial retraction" or "Wadhwa said her words were taken out context". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd say the latter is much better phrasing. While similar, the two statements have wildly different connotations. In this case, "bigotry is bad and we'll challenge you on those beliefs -> she is literally calling for mandatory political re-education, there's nothing wrong with saying trans women should be excluded from working there or receiving services there -> I never said mandatory political re-education ffs, bigotry is bad and we'll challenge you on those beliefs" does not seem to be a partial retraction. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

you're making a stronger argument here for not including the content on the podcast controversy, than for changing the wording on it - my original suggestion, was to throw both the podcast and harassment sections in the feckin' bin, because my secret soothsayer powers told me that the ensuing discussion would be a trainwreck like every other gensex discussion. Oh well. I suppose it keeps you lot away from topics I'm actually interested in...  Tewdar  09:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't realized the solution to the Judgement of Solomon was to just kill the baby at the start to avoid an argument... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe something like this would be better than the dubious 'say you'll chop the baby in half' solution, but I don't think this will help us make our article any better.  Tewdar  20:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

'Harassment' section is overblown

The ’Harassment’ section is vastly overblown, and badly sourced. I had a quick look at the J. K. Rowling article for comparison. I could only find one sentence about the threats she has received. Most of the current section is sourced to openDemocracy, which describes itself as a media platform, rather than as a new publication, and Trans Safety Network, which is a primary source. Only the last 2 paras are sourced to independent reliable sources; the rest of the section, which was added without discussion, should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

So you started out by campaigning to keep 3 paragraphs about a single comment she made that was taken out of context in only 2 publications, but now have a problem with accurately describing a large scale orchestrated harassment campaign she received? Is anything in there actually false or do you just object to it being mentioned? For the record, there is no rule that says all content must be discussed prior to being added.

In terms of JKR, if you can find evidence that people launched a large-scale harassment campaign against her on the basis of her immutable characteristics, targeting her place of work and co-workers (people criticizing a billionaire for her opinions is different than an orchestrated harassment campaign fyi), you can add it there. It has no bearing on this article.

Open Democracy seems to have only been discussed at the RSN once, which concluded that it was reliable. Trans Safety Network has been discussed, and is considered reliable especially with attribution. That Open Democracy linked to their reporting further justifies inclusion.

Some parts are also sourced to the Times, but if you think that's not an independent reliable source... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the majority of this is not sourced to the MainStreamMedia indicates to me that it is not worthy of such a disproportionate amount of coverage in our article. But I’m glad that you seem accept that the Times is an independent, reliable source………… Sweet6970 (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

What you consider the "MainStreamMedia" has no bearing on anything, the only one who has been pushing for disproportionate coverage is you. I consider the times independent, if not especially reliable on trans topics - I was joking about the fact that you had missed the fact it was cited TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

What you consider the "MainStreamMedia" has no bearing on anything, the only one who has been pushing for disproportionate coverage is you. I have no idea what you are talking about – your comment is not an answer to mine. We cannot have a discussion if you don’t address what I say. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd echo the bewilderment you express here. 90.242.228.84 (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure Rowling's article is a good comparator here. Rowling's primary notability stems from:

1. Being an author
2. The Wizarding World media franchise
3. Literary and cultural criticisms of the Wizarding World franchise
4. Authoring the Cormoran Strike series
5. Her activities on social media

While the threats Rowling has received are no doubt important to her, her safety, and her family's safety, when looking at how secondary and tertiary sources write about her they amount to little more than a footnote. The sentence on the threats against Rowling was added while the article was featured on the main page as Today's Featured Article. It was rapidly workshopped by many of the experienced FA editors who had recently contributed to the 2021 Featured Article Review, and is proportionate to how the death threats are covered in reliable sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I certainly accept that JKR is a great deal more notable than MW. But that doesn’t alter the fact that there is a startling disparity between the way harassment is covered in these 2 articles. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

When assessed through our NPOV policy, there is no disparity. Both articles represent the balance of how sources cover their respective subjects in this regard. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I think Rowling's death threats should absolutely be given more attention in her article, as there's certainly more sources on them than the ones linked in her article, but that's a discussion for Rowling's page. I would be in favor of citing, but condensing, some of the harassment section for clarity, particularly Trans Safety Network's supposed breakdown of the actual Twitter accounts involved. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The section is preposterous. The whole thing should be condensed into a single paragraph, like since 2019 Wadhwa has been the target of harassment by organizations and individuals on websites and social media and blah blah blah, including Wings Over Scotland, For Women Scotland, anti trans activist Graham Linehan and blah blah blah, which consited of unfounded allegations, threats of violence, racist commentary, and blah blah blah and blah. This resulted in Wadhwa saying she feared for her life, the ERRC installing intercom and a reinforced door, and blah blah blah...  Tewdar  09:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)