Talk:Ruth Pearce (sociologist)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ruth Pearce (sociologist) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Sociology

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

LGBTQ+ studies: Person

	LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
	This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force.

Cass Review Controversy Section

Given Wikipedia's living person biography standard, it is appropriate to ensure the language in the Cass Review Controversy section is appropriately conservative to protect Dr. Pearce's privacy, particularly given her status in a field with heightened issues around editing on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, there are no other primary sources available for any claims made in the Telegraph article - all secondary or supporting sources are simply sources that regurgitated the Telegraph's reporting without any additional research. Due to this I think it's worth taking a conservative approach to editing of this section as there is effectively a single source for all of the information in that section. Mvdltn (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of this section to be more conservative seems appropriate. The removal of the entire section was extreme.

The Telegraph is a paper of record in the UK, and considered an authoritative source per Wikipedia's standards. Dr. Pearce is a public figure and a prominent and well-respected newspaper reporting on her public activities is a perfectly reasonable source for her page: "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact."

The efforts to make the section more conservative with clearer statements of fact is appropriate and adequately brings this section in line with Wikipedia's standards. Dr. Pearce's involvement in both advocacy to the Scottish government and simultaneous public protest activity, as reported by a newspaper of record, is appropriate for inclusion on her page as she is a prominent academic with a Wikipedia profile.

Further removal of the entire section is unnecessary. Mjeffersonm (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP, contentious material that's poorly sourced MUST be removed.

Even were that much not the case, and entire section on a BLP article marked as low importance, for an event of such minimal notability that it lacks original reporting from any other source, would be patently absurd. As commented in the original revert, WP:UNDUE. Crimsone (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invoking WP:BLP is wildly inappropriate because it is not poorly sourced; it comes from a literal paper of record in the UK. If this person is relevant enough to have a BLP on Wikipedia, than their activities, as reported by a MAJOR NEWSPAPER and involving advising the government of Scotland, are relevant to their BLP. Mjeffersonm (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we require independent WP:SECONDARY reliable sources, especially on biographies of living people.

As this article is a primary source, and is on a topic that the WP:TELEGRAPH has found to only be marginally reliable by the community, extra care on such coverage has to be taken, as transgender topics are a contentious topic as designated by Wikipedia's arbitration enforcement ruling. I've left some details what this means on your talk page.

Which means that for now, this piece is undue per the cited applicable policies. Raladic (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I offered a very thoughtful, nuanced, and middle-ground critique of the edits, all of which are perfectly in line with the contentious topic standards, which I read before posting, as they were mentioned in this first poster's comment.

There is no consensus among editors of this page. Two editors found the primary source reliable, and two found it marginally reliable or unreliable. You are being deliberately misleading. Mjeffersonm (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the Telegraph is considered marginally reliable by Wiki editors in general related to transgender issues, not editors on this page, which is what the other editors are indicating. Mjeffersonm (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, we have very strict policies on BLP when it comes to potentially controversial or disparaging content and the source for this content fails multiple of our policies - as it's a primary source on this reporting it fails sourced to reliable secondary sources of WP:BLPBALANCE, and also WP:BLPSOURCES on contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. In fact, the article may even be considered WP:BLPGOSSIP in light of using words such as "trashed" in its reporting. Raladic (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see I didn't und understand that correctly. Thanks for being patient and explaining it. Mjeffersonm (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Our policies and guidelines can be pretty overwhelming at first, especially in the biographies of living people space. Again, welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing :) Raladic (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]